{"judgments":[{"pair_id":"E12Q063","scores_a":{"structural_fidelity":5,"domain_fidelity":5,"causal_coherence":5,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":5,"practicality":5,"contrivance_risk":2},"scores_b":{"structural_fidelity":4,"domain_fidelity":3,"causal_coherence":4,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":5,"practicality":3,"contrivance_risk":4},"winner":"A","reason":"A applies guardrails, uncertainty-aware dominance, explicit selection authority, and rechecks directly to an existing formulation decision. B is testable but relies on a less robust density proxy and an apparatus whose added complexity may not improve cutoff selection."},{"pair_id":"E12Q051","scores_a":{"structural_fidelity":5,"domain_fidelity":5,"causal_coherence":5,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":5,"practicality":5,"contrivance_risk":2},"scores_b":{"structural_fidelity":4,"domain_fidelity":4,"causal_coherence":5,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":5,"practicality":4,"contrivance_risk":2},"winner":"A","reason":"Both identify genuine release correlation, but A also combines keyed coalescing, capacity feedback, admission, and fairness controls in the native domain. B is a plausible staged-restart mechanism but has less adaptive recovery control."},{"pair_id":"E12Q060","scores_a":{"structural_fidelity":5,"domain_fidelity":5,"causal_coherence":4,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":5,"practicality":4,"contrivance_risk":3},"scores_b":{"structural_fidelity":5,"domain_fidelity":4,"causal_coherence":4,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":5,"practicality":4,"contrivance_risk":2},"winner":"TIE","reason":"A offers direct necessary-condition screening with strong recovery and audit safeguards; B offers governed branch pruning with unusually good false-negative protections. A risks exposure artifacts, while B depends on bounds that may not capture emergent electrolyte behavior."},{"pair_id":"E12Q059","scores_a":{"structural_fidelity":5,"domain_fidelity":5,"causal_coherence":5,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":5,"practicality":5,"contrivance_risk":2},"scores_b":{"structural_fidelity":4,"domain_fidelity":4,"causal_coherence":4,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":5,"practicality":3,"contrivance_risk":4},"winner":"A","reason":"A directly installs frozen predictions, signed residuals, attribution, filtering, and bounded updates in a recurring experimental campaign. B captures the pattern mechanically but relies on a witness coupon adequately representing panel-wide drift and adds a fragile mechanical control layer."},{"pair_id":"E12Q068","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":4,"domain_fidelity":3,"causal_coherence":4,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":5,"practicality":3,"contrivance_risk":4},"winner":"A","reason":"A partitions genuinely distinct change responsibilities with explicit manifests, stewardship, and a whole-workflow completion invariant. B has clear physical interfaces, but its routing segments are only weakly responsibility-coherent and added optical boundaries may outweigh local serviceability."},{"pair_id":"E12Q039","scores_a":{"structural_fidelity":4,"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":5,"contrivance_risk":2},"winner":"B","reason":"B cleanly measures target-specific delayed recognition, sets a bounded expiry rule, and tests contextual refresh without conflating readiness with audit evidence. A contains the same structure but the chemical timer badge is an unnecessarily fragile and potentially distracting physical implementation."}]}