{"judgments":[{"pair_id":"E12MQ022","scores_a":{"structural_fidelity":5,"domain_fidelity":3,"causal_coherence":5,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":5,"practicality":3,"contrivance_risk":4},"scores_b":{"structural_fidelity":4,"domain_fidelity":3,"causal_coherence":4,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":4,"practicality":3,"contrivance_risk":4},"winner":"A","reason":"A more directly establishes a trigger-correlated measurement choke and tests its core admission bound against an ungated baseline; B's custody failure premise is less well grounded."},{"pair_id":"E12MQ038","scores_a":{"structural_fidelity":2,"domain_fidelity":4,"causal_coherence":4,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":5,"practicality":3,"contrivance_risk":4},"scores_b":{"structural_fidelity":5,"domain_fidelity":5,"causal_coherence":5,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":5,"practicality":4,"contrivance_risk":2},"winner":"B","reason":"B is a genuine strategic best-response redesign with private information, selection control, verification, and bounded consequences; A is a plausible materials feedback hypothesis but only metaphorically fits incentive compatibility."},{"pair_id":"E12MQ039","scores_a":{"structural_fidelity":5,"domain_fidelity":5,"causal_coherence":5,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":5,"practicality":4,"contrivance_risk":2},"scores_b":{"structural_fidelity":5,"domain_fidelity":5,"causal_coherence":5,"operational_specificity":4,"testability":4,"practicality":5,"contrivance_risk":2},"winner":"A","reason":"Both fit closely, but A supplies a stronger controlled comparison and clearer mentor-absent transfer falsifier while retaining appropriate audit-governance safeguards."},{"pair_id":"E12MQ020","scores_a":{"structural_fidelity":5,"domain_fidelity":4,"causal_coherence":4,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":4,"practicality":4,"contrivance_risk":3},"scores_b":{"structural_fidelity":5,"domain_fidelity":5,"causal_coherence":5,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":5,"practicality":4,"contrivance_risk":2},"winner":"B","reason":"B more cleanly links a release-time gas pulse to a separately characterized matrix accommodation window and specifies mediator-focused falsifiers; A remains vulnerable to cure kinetics dominating release timing."},{"pair_id":"E12MQ049","scores_a":{"structural_fidelity":5,"domain_fidelity":5,"causal_coherence":5,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":5,"practicality":4,"contrivance_risk":2},"scores_b":{"structural_fidelity":5,"domain_fidelity":5,"causal_coherence":5,"operational_specificity":4,"testability":4,"practicality":5,"contrivance_risk":2},"winner":"A","reason":"A gives more discriminating change-impact perturbations, interface identities, and reintegration checks for a specific accounting calculation while preserving management and auditor roles."},{"pair_id":"E12MQ015","scores_a":{"structural_fidelity":5,"domain_fidelity":5,"causal_coherence":5,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":5,"practicality":4,"contrivance_risk":2},"scores_b":{"structural_fidelity":5,"domain_fidelity":5,"causal_coherence":4,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":4,"practicality":4,"contrivance_risk":3},"winner":"A","reason":"A isolates a narrowly adjudicable authorization rule across concrete execution paths and tests locality plus composed decision/audit equivalence; B's proposed boundaries face stronger irreducible semantic coupling."}]}