{"judgments":[{"pair_id":"E12Q009","scores_a":{"structural_fidelity":4,"domain_fidelity":3,"causal_coherence":3,"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 directly repairs an operator’s goal–model–action–authority–feedback loop in a realistic safety-bounded process. A is carefully specified but relies on an elaborate physical analogy and uncertain curing dynamics."},{"pair_id":"E12Q049","scores_a":{"structural_fidelity":5,"domain_fidelity":5,"causal_coherence":5,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":5,"practicality":5,"contrivance_risk":1},"scores_b":{"structural_fidelity":3,"domain_fidelity":3,"causal_coherence":4,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":5,"practicality":3,"contrivance_risk":4},"winner":"A","reason":"A is a direct, safety-aware application of staged information access to a complex synthesis procedure. B uses ordered exposure thresholds competently, but inactive indicator rings are a weak analogue of user-directed disclosure and add safety-interpretation risk."},{"pair_id":"E12Q001","scores_a":{"structural_fidelity":2,"domain_fidelity":4,"causal_coherence":3,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":5,"practicality":3,"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 genuinely creates a transparent self-selection service menu with a protected quality floor and measurable tier boundaries. A has a plausible chemical assay concept but substitutes extraction thresholds for buyers, prices, and self-selection."},{"pair_id":"E12Q020","scores_a":{"structural_fidelity":3,"domain_fidelity":3,"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 makes a reconciliation steward’s bounded agency and learning loop explicit while preserving accounting controls. A offers a testable comparator but its elaborate mechanical coupling is not a natural repair of the stated agency failure."},{"pair_id":"E12Q012","scores_a":{"structural_fidelity":4,"domain_fidelity":3,"causal_coherence":3,"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 preserves pre-outcome predictions, signed residuals, credit assignment, noise filtering, and calibrated updates in a native adaptive-software setting. A is unusually detailed, but its physical forecast mechanism has substantial lag, calibration, and implementation burdens."},{"pair_id":"E12Q005","scores_a":{"structural_fidelity":4,"domain_fidelity":3,"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 applies propagation, justified partitioning, and recomposition checks directly to shared-schema migration constraints. A can embody a small fixed constraint set mechanically, but scales poorly and is an overengineered substitute for the target problem’s software constraints."}]}