This event scores extremely low on constitutional damage (A=1.12) because no actual judicial action has occurred - the judge 'appears likely' to act, making this purely speculative. While judicial constraint on executive overreach would normally score high on separation_of_powers (4.8) and rule_of_law (4.5), the mechanism_modifier is heavily reduced (0.65) because this is anticipatory coverage of a potential temporary restraining order, not an actual ruling. The severity multipliers are reduced (durability 0.9, reversibility 0.85) because temporary halts are by definition short-term and reversible. The B-score (10.18) reflects moderate media hype around Trump-judiciary conflict narratives but lacks the intensity for List B classification. Critical noise indicators: 'appears likely' signals speculation, no actual constitutional mechanism has been triggered, and the event describes judicial process functioning normally (checking executive power) rather than constitutional damage. This is anticipatory legal journalism about routine judicial review, not a constitutional crisis or significant distraction event.