You are a constitutional council ranking individual git commits for ownership allocation.

Compare these two commits. Decide which contributed more lasting value to the project.

Judge substance, not spectacle:
- Prefer correct, lasting design and real bugfixes over churn, formatting, renames, or generated noise.
- Prefer clarity and necessity over sheer line count. A small precise change can beat a large diffuse one.
- Do not favor a side merely because its patch is longer or noisier.
- Weight what the change does for the project, not the contributor's name.

Return ONLY a JSON object: {"winner": "A" or "B", "ratio": "N:M", "explanation": "..."}
The explanation must cite concrete differences in the patches (1-3 sentences).

Side A — contributor: tommy-mor
Side A — commit message:
[65bce99f] sibling groups #130

Side A — unified diff (full patch):
diff --git a/server/src/html/garden.rs b/server/src/html/garden.rs
index 82c1b4b4f36ea13a906035a1789ba893222b3695..e3c56d124ab7b0fa08c7f9ae736103e6b7cf5862 100644
--- a/server/src/html/garden.rs
+++ b/server/src/html/garden.rs
@@ -837,7 +837,8 @@ struct SiblingNavGroup {
     links: Vec<SiblingNavLink>,
 }
 
-/// Siblings under the same parent, grouped like child rankings (components then isolates).
+/// Siblings under the same parent: one group per ranking component (ordered list), then one
+/// group per isolated unranked sibling (each shows rank `1`, separated like components).
 #[derive(Debug, Clone)]
 struct SiblingNavBar {
     groups: Vec<SiblingNavGroup>,
@@ -890,15 +891,12 @@ fn build_sibling_nav(
             groups.push(SiblingNavGroup { links });
         }
     }
-    if !rankings.unranked_items.is_empty() {
-        let links: Vec<SiblingNavLink> = rankings
-            .unranked_items
-            .iter()
-            .map(|u| SiblingNavLink {
+    for u in &rankings.unranked_items {
+        groups.push(SiblingNavGroup {
+            links: vec![SiblingNavLink {
                 path: u.clone().normalized_storage().to_storage_string(),
-            })
-            .collect();
-        groups.push(SiblingNavGroup { links });
+            }],
+        });
     }
     let sibling_total: usize = groups.iter().map(|g| g.links.len()).sum();
     if sibling_total <= 1 {
@@ -1541,6 +1539,29 @@ mod tests {
         assert_eq!(nav.groups[1].links.len(), 1);
     }
 
+    #[test]
+    fn sibling_nav_splits_each_unranked_into_its_own_group() {
+        let mut reduced = ReducerState::default();
+        apply_ingest(
+            &mut reduced,
+            1,
+            "@00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000:test:local/test\n\
+             ~/topic {topic body}\n\
+             ~/topic/a {alpha}\n\
+             ~/topic/b {beta}\n\
+             ~/topic/c {gamma}\n\
+             ~/topic/d {delta}\n\
+             {a beats b}\n             ~/topic/a 2:1 ~/topic/b\n",
+        );
+
+        let model = build_item_page_view_model(&reduced, &ScopeId::Public, "~/topic/a");
+        let nav = model.sibling_nav.expect("expected sibling nav");
+        assert_eq!(nav.groups.len(), 3);
+        assert_eq!(nav.groups[0].links.len(), 2);
+        assert_eq!(nav.groups[1].links.len(), 1);
+        assert_eq!(nav.groups[2].links.len(), 1);
+    }
+
     #[test]
     fn item_page_model_builds_ranked_child_components() {
         let mut reduced = ReducerState::default();


Side B — contributor: tommy-mor
Side B — commit message:
[9e3d989b] Add test that 25 spanning-tree votes with perfect ratios sort the alphabet.

Demonstrates rank centrality recovers the true order from a random connected
comparison graph when each vote encodes item strength as (idx+1).

Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>

Side B — unified diff (full patch):
diff --git a/server/src/ranking.rs b/server/src/ranking.rs
index c9b4d5d89d2f22cf53a5b43eb979e19a11bc89a1..93cb4c9f5887a1e598cdc9d648751055f618adcc 100644
--- a/server/src/ranking.rs
+++ b/server/src/ranking.rs
@@ -369,6 +369,48 @@ mod tests {
         assert_eq!(comp1, vec!["c", "d"]);
     }
 
+    /// A random spanning tree over 26 items needs only n−1 = 25 pairwise votes.
+    /// When each vote uses the "perfect" ratio (strength left : strength right =
+    /// (idx_left+1) : (idx_right+1)), rank centrality recovers the true order.
+    /// See `rank-eric.py` (Eric's demo of Negahban–Oh–Shah rank centrality).
+    #[test]
+    fn twenty_five_random_votes_perfect_ratios_sort_alphabet() {
+        use rand::seq::SliceRandom;
+
+        const N: usize = 26;
+        let letters: Vec<char> = (0..N).map(|i| char::from(b'a' + i as u8)).collect();
+
+        let mut rng = rand::thread_rng();
+        let mut perm: Vec<usize> = (0..N).collect();
+        perm.shuffle(&mut rng);
+
+        let mut g = mk_group();
+        for k in 1..N {
+            let i = *perm[..k].choose(&mut rng).unwrap();
+            let j = perm[k];
+            let (a, b) = (letters[i], letters[j]);
+            g.apply_vote(vote(
+                k as i64,
+                &a.to_string(),
+                &b.to_string(),
+                (i + 1) as i32,
+                (j + 1) as i32,
+            ));
+        }
+
+        let ranked = ranked_items(&g);
+        assert_eq!(ranked.len(), N);
+        for (rank, item) in ranked.iter().enumerate() {
+            let expected = char::from(b'a' + (N - 1 - rank) as u8);
+            assert_eq!(
+                item.item.as_str(),
+                expected.to_string(),
+                "rank {rank}: expected '{expected}', got '{}'",
+                item.item.as_str()
+            );
+        }
+    }
+
     #[test]
     fn subset_ranking_ranks_within_component_only() {
         let mut g = mk_group();