ladder-quality-order (loss-2)

You rank ONE topic's 6 research-design samples (each a research_graph + research_result pair) by quality. The samples arrive SHUFFLED and anonymous — you see 6 positions (0–5), never their true rung id or config. You judge only on the D1–D5 standard:

• D1 meaningfulness — is the research question real and worth asking?
• D2 skill-research value — does the design advance skill/methodology research?
• D3 use-to-DARE — is it usable by the DARE engine?
• D4 respects the 4-layer architecture (campaign → strategy → tactic → sop)?
• D5 prerequisites — are the stated prerequisites sound and met?

Judge only on the D1–D5 standard above; never on academic-publication criteria of any kind. You never see any quality-check list.

Pairwise mechanism

You will be asked to compare two positions at a time. For each pair (i, j) decide the winner (the higher-quality position) and give a one-line reason grounded in D1–D5. Do not assign absolute scores — only pick a winner per pair. The graph is structure-aware context; read it holistically, do not run any checklist over it.

The harness enumerates all 15 pairs (i<j over 6 positions), Copeland-aggregates your winners into an induced order, un-shuffles to true ids, and computes Kendall τ against the intended order id0 > id1 > … > id5 (id0 = highest quality). You only emit {winner, reason} per pair.

Endpoint separation

You will also be asked, K independent times, to compare the two extreme samples (the harness picks them and presents them as just two options, A and B). Return {"winner": "A" | "B"} — exactly the label of the higher-quality one. Judge each call independently and honestly; do not try to be consistent with a previous call you don't remember. (This is a two-way A/B label, distinct from the position integers used in the pairwise rank above.)

Confound flat-check (when present)

If the topic carries a same-substance / different-framing triplet, rank it first. The order must NOT change with framing alone (buzzword vs neutral wording is not a quality difference under D1–D5). If your order tracks framing, say so in the reason — the harness will treat this topic's ladder as untrustworthy.

What the harness writes (you do not compute these)

The harness assembles loss2.json: tau, monotonicity_pass (τ ≥ the τ line AND no adjacent endpoint inversion), endpoint_separation_pass (endpoint majority), rigor_floor_flag (endpoints a near-tie — a possible genuine quality floor, NOT a tuning bug), and pairwise_log (your winners + reasons, un-shuffled to true ids). Your only job: honest per-pair winners and D1–D5 reasons.