{"judgments":[{"pair_id":"E12Q021","scores_a":{"structural_fidelity":5,"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 directly characterizes a bounded, versioned software evaluator’s full preimage with exhaustive coverage and clear use limits. A is rigorous but the specialized physical cradle is less practical and more forced than necessary for its diagnosis."},{"pair_id":"E12Q056","scores_a":{"structural_fidelity":5,"domain_fidelity":4,"causal_coherence":4,"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":4,"contrivance_risk":3},"winner":"A","reason":"A cleanly applies future-state dependency reasoning across material performance, manufacture, repair, and recovery, then translates it into bounded present tests. B has a credible physical hypothesis but its literal thermal reverse calculation is more assumption-heavy and only partially realizes pathway backcasting."},{"pair_id":"E12Q041","scores_a":{"structural_fidelity":5,"domain_fidelity":4,"causal_coherence":4,"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":3,"contrivance_risk":3},"winner":"A","reason":"A treats an existing, bounded close-period disequilibrium as a controlled source of change while explicitly budgeting harm and restoring normal governance. B is a coherent metering design, but it largely redescribes ordinary pressure-driven measurement as disequilibrium leverage."},{"pair_id":"E12Q061","scores_a":{"structural_fidelity":4,"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":5,"testability":5,"practicality":4,"contrivance_risk":1},"winner":"B","reason":"B is a direct anchoring-reset intervention: protected independent estimation, evidence-based recalibration, and downstream inheritance review. A provides valuable independent measurement, but it primarily remedies missing composition evidence rather than the reference-point process itself."},{"pair_id":"E12Q039","scores_a":{"structural_fidelity":5,"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":4,"contrivance_risk":1},"winner":"B","reason":"B directly measures target-specific cue decay, defines an expiry threshold, and tests transparent contextual reactivation in an appropriate bounded simulation. A is elaborately testable but its chemical timing badge adds unjustified complexity and weak practical fit."},{"pair_id":"E12Q034","scores_a":{"structural_fidelity":4,"domain_fidelity":4,"causal_coherence":5,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":5,"practicality":4,"contrivance_risk":3},"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 is an exemplary future-to-present dependency backcast with clear feasibility constraints and a contained replay pilot. A is a coherent hardware sequencer, but literal reverse-derived circuit gating is a narrower engineering design pattern rather than a strong instance of pathway backcasting."}]}