{"judgments":[{"pair_id":"E12MQ033","scores_a":{"structural_fidelity":3,"domain_fidelity":3,"causal_coherence":3,"operational_specificity":4,"testability":4,"practicality":3,"contrivance_risk":4},"scores_b":{"structural_fidelity":3,"domain_fidelity":4,"causal_coherence":4,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":5,"practicality":3,"contrivance_risk":3},"winner":"B","reason":"B more concretely specifies device physics, reference isolation, comparators, and held-out tests; both retain a strained mentor-to-array mapping."},{"pair_id":"E12MQ030","scores_a":{"structural_fidelity":4,"domain_fidelity":4,"causal_coherence":4,"operational_specificity":4,"testability":4,"practicality":4,"contrivance_risk":2},"scores_b":{"structural_fidelity":5,"domain_fidelity":4,"causal_coherence":5,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":5,"practicality":3,"contrivance_risk":3},"winner":"B","reason":"B more fully handles real physical integration gaps—especially shared-path residue, cross-loading, and independent reweighing—though at greater implementation complexity."},{"pair_id":"E12MQ041","scores_a":{"structural_fidelity":4,"domain_fidelity":4,"causal_coherence":4,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":5,"practicality":3,"contrivance_risk":3},"scores_b":{"structural_fidelity":5,"domain_fidelity":5,"causal_coherence":5,"operational_specificity":4,"testability":4,"practicality":4,"contrivance_risk":2},"winner":"B","reason":"A recognizes that melt interactions may defeat its concentrate boundaries; B uses physically and functionally distinct layers with natural interfaces, making the modular claim more credible."},{"pair_id":"E12MQ008","scores_a":{"structural_fidelity":5,"domain_fidelity":5,"causal_coherence":5,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":5,"practicality":4,"contrivance_risk":1},"scores_b":{"structural_fidelity":5,"domain_fidelity":4,"causal_coherence":5,"operational_specificity":4,"testability":4,"practicality":4,"contrivance_risk":2},"winner":"A","reason":"A supplies a sharper, safer comparison that isolates relationship-specific transfer from equivalent instruction, while keeping formal safety authority separate from mentorship."},{"pair_id":"E12MQ023","scores_a":{"structural_fidelity":3,"domain_fidelity":3,"causal_coherence":3,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":4,"practicality":2,"contrivance_risk":5},"scores_b":{"structural_fidelity":5,"domain_fidelity":5,"causal_coherence":5,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":5,"practicality":4,"contrivance_risk":1},"winner":"B","reason":"B directly instantiates safe mentor-anchored enculturation in a chemistry setting; A's elaborate crystal analogy has strong controls but makes relational constructs decorative and relies on difficult fragment-exclusion claims."},{"pair_id":"E12MQ021","scores_a":{"structural_fidelity":3,"domain_fidelity":4,"causal_coherence":4,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":5,"practicality":2,"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 addresses the actual legitimacy problem with mandate, scope, representation, competence, reasons, and outcome-changing review. A rigorously tests electrical gating but cannot establish consent or representation through key possession."}]}