{"judgments":[{"pair_id":"E13Q060","reason":"Both preserve the macro–member distinction well. A more naturally turns stable shared-header delivery into a constrained, testable member-duty allocation problem; B’s preload intervention is more mechanically speculative.","scores_a":{"causal_coherence":5,"contrivance_risk":2,"incremental_portfolio_value":5,"operational_specificity":5,"practicality":4,"structural_fidelity":5,"testability":5},"scores_b":{"causal_coherence":5,"contrivance_risk":3,"incremental_portfolio_value":5,"operational_specificity":5,"practicality":3,"structural_fidelity":5,"testability":5},"winner":"A"},{"pair_id":"E13Q012","reason":"A has a direct material-degradation mechanism, clear reversible responses, and provides a more distinct complement to procedural-condition monitoring. B is sound and practical but somewhat closer to ordinary legal-maintenance review.","scores_a":{"causal_coherence":5,"contrivance_risk":3,"incremental_portfolio_value":5,"operational_specificity":5,"practicality":4,"structural_fidelity":5,"testability":5},"scores_b":{"causal_coherence":4,"contrivance_risk":2,"incremental_portfolio_value":4,"operational_specificity":5,"practicality":4,"structural_fidelity":5,"testability":5},"winner":"A"},{"pair_id":"E13Q041","reason":"A identifies a specific leading chemical signal for a known autocatalytic failure mode, then validates and recalibrates it. B is a credible broad condition-monitoring program but is less discriminating and less causally sharp.","scores_a":{"causal_coherence":5,"contrivance_risk":2,"incremental_portfolio_value":5,"operational_specificity":5,"practicality":4,"structural_fidelity":5,"testability":5},"scores_b":{"causal_coherence":4,"contrivance_risk":2,"incremental_portfolio_value":4,"operational_specificity":4,"practicality":4,"structural_fidelity":4,"testability":4},"winner":"A"},{"pair_id":"E13Q058","reason":"B supplies a complete, practical multiplicity discipline for iterative ranking work. A is impressively testable but relies on an unusually elaborate cassette, family-size comparator, and split-sample apparatus whose operational burden and calibration assumptions make it forced.","scores_a":{"causal_coherence":4,"contrivance_risk":5,"incremental_portfolio_value":5,"operational_specificity":5,"practicality":2,"structural_fidelity":4,"testability":5},"scores_b":{"causal_coherence":5,"contrivance_risk":2,"incremental_portfolio_value":3,"operational_specificity":5,"practicality":4,"structural_fidelity":5,"testability":5},"winner":"B"},{"pair_id":"E13Q049","reason":"B is a natural, implementable instance of governed volatile-to-durable transfer with strong provenance and reconciliation rules. A embodies the architecture but its bespoke mechanical recorder and embossing transfer create substantial feasibility and calibration risk.","scores_a":{"causal_coherence":4,"contrivance_risk":4,"incremental_portfolio_value":5,"operational_specificity":5,"practicality":2,"structural_fidelity":5,"testability":5},"scores_b":{"causal_coherence":5,"contrivance_risk":2,"incremental_portfolio_value":3,"operational_specificity":5,"practicality":4,"structural_fidelity":5,"testability":5},"winner":"B"},{"pair_id":"E13Q013","reason":"B retains appropriate evidentiary-status distinctions while recognizing the need for corroboration beyond resemblance. A’s physical controls help constrain imaging artifacts, but they cannot adequately validate recovered language on a singular manuscript and make the construction overly forced.","scores_a":{"causal_coherence":3,"contrivance_risk":5,"incremental_portfolio_value":5,"operational_specificity":5,"practicality":2,"structural_fidelity":3,"testability":4},"scores_b":{"causal_coherence":4,"contrivance_risk":3,"incremental_portfolio_value":3,"operational_specificity":5,"practicality":4,"structural_fidelity":4,"testability":4},"winner":"B"}]}