{"judgments":[{"pair_id":"E12Q014","scores_a":{"structural_fidelity":5,"domain_fidelity":4,"causal_coherence":4,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":5,"practicality":3,"contrivance_risk":3},"scores_b":{"structural_fidelity":5,"domain_fidelity":5,"causal_coherence":5,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":5,"practicality":4,"contrivance_risk":2},"winner":"B","reason":"Both instantiate modular decomposition well, but the coating-stack proposal is a more practical bounded materials study with clearer module ownership and lower interface-engineering overhead."},{"pair_id":"E12Q052","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":4,"domain_fidelity":3,"causal_coherence":4,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":5,"practicality":3,"contrivance_risk":4},"winner":"A","reason":"A directly governs causal-branch exclusion, uncertainty retention, auditability, and reentry in reconciliation work; B is a useful screen but is an elaborate, narrow physical proxy with substantial audit limitations."},{"pair_id":"E12Q018","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":4,"causal_coherence":5,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":5,"practicality":3,"contrivance_risk":3},"winner":"A","reason":"A more directly detects a distributed, interacting accounting pattern and connects it to contextual classification and response; B is a credible physical completeness check but less clearly distinguishes emergence from ordinary mass reconciliation."},{"pair_id":"E12Q050","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":5,"domain_fidelity":4,"causal_coherence":5,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":5,"practicality":3,"contrivance_risk":4},"winner":"A","reason":"A cleanly separates guardrails, dominance screening, frontier mapping, and authorized preference choice in a realistic software decision; B encodes the same logic but adds fragile physical complexity without improving the evidential step."},{"pair_id":"E12Q015","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":2,"domain_fidelity":4,"causal_coherence":4,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":5,"practicality":3,"contrivance_risk":4},"winner":"A","reason":"A directly targets anchor exposure, independent judgment, evidence calibration, and downstream inheritance. B is primarily a passive thermal feedback controller; its anchoring correspondence is metaphorical rather than the supplied intervention structure."},{"pair_id":"E12Q055","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":4,"causal_coherence":5,"operational_specificity":5,"testability":5,"practicality":3,"contrivance_risk":3},"winner":"A","reason":"A uses an existing workload gradient through a tightly budgeted, monitored, reversible work channel and explicitly manages dissipation and exit. B is structurally sound but has a less plausible energy margin and added thermal-resistance burden."}]}