{"judgments":[{"pair_id":"E12MQ006","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 accurately target a shared CI release event and finite downstream choke. A more fully specifies capacity feedback, authorization-safe coalescing, bounded fairness, and a discriminating multi-rival replay; B is simpler and highly plausible but its initial comparison is less robust."},{"pair_id":"E12MQ046","scores_a":{"structural_fidelity":5,"domain_fidelity":4,"causal_coherence":5,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":5,"practicality":4,"contrivance_risk":2},"scores_b":{"structural_fidelity":4,"domain_fidelity":4,"causal_coherence":5,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":5,"practicality":4,"contrivance_risk":3},"winner":"A","reason":"A directly moves discrete transition initiation from a timer to validated part-state evidence while preserving a narrow contract, safety limits, and fallback. B is a credible self-healing-coating hypothesis with strong controls, but treating a crack-triggered chemical reaction as recipient-initiated control is more metaphorically imposed."}]}