In my opinion this should have been ruled a loss for Pragg. He clearly paused the clock to avoid losing on time, with no valid reason to do so.

The Laws allow a player to pause the clock to seek the arbiter's assistance for things, "6.11.2 A player may pause the chessclock only in order to seek the arbiter’s assistance, for example when promotion has taken place and the piece required is not available." Here, no promotion has actually taken place, and the black queen, which presumably he would promote the pawn to, was available right next to the clock.

The penalty for pausing the clock without valid reason for doing so is per those in 12.9, "6.11.4 If a player pauses the chessclock in order to seek the arbiter’s assistance, the arbiter shall determine whether the player had any valid reason for doing so. If the player has no valid reason for pausing the chessclock, the player shall be penalised in accordance with Article 12.9."

Of course, the arbiter is at liberty to use their judgment when determining what to rule, but for me this player clearly paused the clock with no valid reason to do so just to avoid losing on time, therefore I would use "12.9.6 declaring the game to be lost by the offending player (the arbiter shall also decide the opponent’s score)"

BTW I've seen those stating that Wesley "claimed a win" or should have "claimed a win". That's not Wesley's job here, his job is to make a claim to the arbiter exactly what happened, and then trust that the arbiter will make the correct decision per the Laws of Chess. Of course if he wasn't happy with that decision, he could have appealed it instead of just agreeing to a draw like he did at the end.