{"judgments":[{"pair_id":"E13Q003","reason":"B more cleanly instantiates governed fast capture, durable validation, transfer manifests, and reconciliation; A is inventive but materially less practical and its interval interpretation depends on uncertain flow behavior.","scores_a":{"causal_coherence":4,"contrivance_risk":3,"incremental_portfolio_value":4,"operational_specificity":5,"practicality":2,"structural_fidelity":5,"testability":5},"scores_b":{"causal_coherence":5,"contrivance_risk":1,"incremental_portfolio_value":4,"operational_specificity":5,"practicality":4,"structural_fidelity":5,"testability":5},"winner":"B"},{"pair_id":"E13Q056","reason":"A directly diagnoses mixed legal and operational transition clocks and supplies lawful, authority-specific sunset gates. B is well controlled analytically but its physical assay ladder is a less natural fit for the transition-regime problem.","scores_a":{"causal_coherence":5,"contrivance_risk":1,"incremental_portfolio_value":3,"operational_specificity":5,"practicality":4,"structural_fidelity":5,"testability":4},"scores_b":{"causal_coherence":4,"contrivance_risk":4,"incremental_portfolio_value":3,"operational_specificity":5,"practicality":3,"structural_fidelity":4,"testability":5},"winner":"A"},{"pair_id":"E13Q006","reason":"B applies multiplicity discipline directly to a multi-endpoint study with clear status and replication boundaries. A operationalizes the same logic unusually concretely but over-physicalizes a statistical governance problem.","scores_a":{"causal_coherence":4,"contrivance_risk":5,"incremental_portfolio_value":3,"operational_specificity":5,"practicality":2,"structural_fidelity":4,"testability":4},"scores_b":{"causal_coherence":5,"contrivance_risk":1,"incremental_portfolio_value":3,"operational_specificity":5,"practicality":4,"structural_fidelity":5,"testability":5},"winner":"B"},{"pair_id":"E13Q016","reason":"A is a highly practical, preservation-safe application of defeasible explanation selection. B adds useful physical evidence, but passive-coupon signatures may remain ambiguous and require more specialized validation.","scores_a":{"causal_coherence":5,"contrivance_risk":1,"incremental_portfolio_value":3,"operational_specificity":5,"practicality":5,"structural_fidelity":5,"testability":4},"scores_b":{"causal_coherence":4,"contrivance_risk":3,"incremental_portfolio_value":4,"operational_specificity":5,"practicality":3,"structural_fidelity":4,"testability":4},"winner":"A"},{"pair_id":"E13Q045","reason":"B is a disciplined, feasible actor-versus-institution attribution study with bounded counterfactuals. A has rich controls but relies on an expensive modern reconstruction that cannot strongly establish historical causal conditions.","scores_a":{"causal_coherence":4,"contrivance_risk":4,"incremental_portfolio_value":4,"operational_specificity":5,"practicality":2,"structural_fidelity":4,"testability":4},"scores_b":{"causal_coherence":5,"contrivance_risk":1,"incremental_portfolio_value":3,"operational_specificity":5,"practicality":4,"structural_fidelity":5,"testability":4},"winner":"B"},{"pair_id":"E13Q022","reason":"B uses direct preload measurement and crossed physical conditions to distinguish technician, hardware, material, and interaction effects. This gives the attribution frame unusually strong causal leverage while retaining authority boundaries.","scores_a":{"causal_coherence":5,"contrivance_risk":2,"incremental_portfolio_value":3,"operational_specificity":5,"practicality":4,"structural_fidelity":5,"testability":3},"scores_b":{"causal_coherence":5,"contrivance_risk":2,"incremental_portfolio_value":4,"operational_specificity":5,"practicality":4,"structural_fidelity":5,"testability":5},"winner":"B"}]}