{"judgments":[{"pair_id":"E12Q008","scores_a":{"structural_fidelity":4,"domain_fidelity":2,"causal_coherence":4,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":5,"practicality":2,"contrivance_risk":5},"scores_b":{"structural_fidelity":5,"domain_fidelity":5,"causal_coherence":5,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":5,"practicality":5,"contrivance_risk":1},"winner":"B","reason":"B directly audits rolled-forward audit judgments as inherited substrate, traces origin conditions and propagation, and has a feasible controlled pilot. A is rigorous but relies on an unusually elaborate preservation mechanism with weak routine accounting practicality."},{"pair_id":"E12Q019","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":4,"domain_fidelity":3,"causal_coherence":4,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":4,"practicality":2,"contrivance_risk":5},"winner":"A","reason":"A cleanly preserves prior expectations, signed deviations, credit assignment, uncertainty filtering, and bounded updating within internal audit. B physically instantiates an update loop but is an unnecessarily specialized and operationally awkward inventory instrument."},{"pair_id":"E12Q006","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":4,"domain_fidelity":3,"causal_coherence":5,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":5,"practicality":3,"contrivance_risk":4},"winner":"A","reason":"A explicitly models private information, choice, payoff changes, verification, appeal, and gaming. B compellingly couples withdrawal to evidence, but its physical gate is narrow, bypass-sensitive, and less broadly plausible as accounting control design."},{"pair_id":"E12Q040","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":4,"domain_fidelity":5,"causal_coherence":5,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":5,"practicality":4,"contrivance_risk":2},"winner":"A","reason":"A directly reverses discrete cure-stage initiation to the part-specific readiness signal while retaining qualified guardrails and fallback. B is a strong materials hypothesis, but maps inversion more metaphorically and depends on demanding capsule-release and healing chemistry."},{"pair_id":"E12Q031","scores_a":{"structural_fidelity":3,"domain_fidelity":2,"causal_coherence":4,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":5,"practicality":2,"contrivance_risk":5},"scores_b":{"structural_fidelity":5,"domain_fidelity":5,"causal_coherence":5,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":5,"practicality":5,"contrivance_risk":1},"winner":"B","reason":"B faithfully uses a bounded, safe mentor relationship to transmit tacit incident judgment, with plural anchors and autonomy safeguards. A’s physical analogy is inventive but does not naturally instantiate relational enculturation in the target domain."},{"pair_id":"E12Q007","scores_a":{"structural_fidelity":4,"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":5,"contrivance_risk":1},"winner":"B","reason":"B naturally applies propagation, normalization, justified partitioning, and recomposition to coupled defect chemistry and has a low-risk evidence step. A has a clear physical prefix-tree mechanism but depends on restrictive irreversibility assumptions and introduces substantial microfluidic artifacts."}]}