Preregistered, one-run hardware characterization of a verification-before-execution boundary using mid-circuit measurement and dynamic-circuit feed-forward on ibm_kingston (job d9ajf3eg26ic73deq3l0, 4096 shots/arm). Preregistered kill-condition: DENY-leakage ≤ 3%. Measured: 12.62% → FAIL. Post-hoc analysis (zero evidential weight): leakage is indistinguishable from the idle-control readout baseline (13.50%), indicating measurement noise, not feed-forward misfire, sets the certification floor. Standalone work; separate from the UIP Phase 1 record. No claim of new physics. Code, preregistration, and raw results: github.com/derekhone/uip-phase1-testbeds (vbe1/).
Preregistered, one-run hardware characterization of a verification-before-execution boundary using mid-circuit measurement and dynamic-circuit feed-forward on ibm_kingston (job d9ajf3eg26ic73deq3l0, 4096 shots/arm). Preregistered kill-condition: DENY-leakage ≤ 3%. Measured: 12.62% → FAIL. Post-hoc analysis (zero evidential weight): leakage is indistinguishable from the idle-control readout baseline (13.50%), indicating measurement noise, not feed-forward misfire, sets the certification floor. Standalone work; separate from the UIP Phase 1 record. No claim of new physics. Code, preregistration, and raw results: github.com/derekhone/uip-phase1-testbeds (vbe1/).
UIP is a candidate framework formalizing coherence, drift, inheritance, resonance, waste, and non-harm constraints as measurable control-theoretic and information-theoretic objects, governed by dC/dt = G(R,U) − L(D,W) subject to a hard non-harm envelope. This Phase 1 record contains three artifacts: (1) the preprint; (2) Appendix A — a single noisy qubit memory in which every UIP object is numerically specified, six preregistered falsification tests passed, and the fixed-point condition G = L predicted steady-state drift D* = 0.1032 vs 0.1051 simulated (within 2%); (3) Appendix B — a two-qubit test of inheritance-guided correction allocation, which FAILED its preregistered falsification condition in both version 1 and a preregistered version 2 across a full coupling sweep, reported in full with the diagnosed mechanism and a sharpened restricted-access boundary hypothesis (v3) left open for independent testing. All results are consistent with standard quantum mechanics, quantum information theory, and feedback control. This work demonstrates reduction to known science (Criterion 1) only; novel prediction (Criterion 2) and independent replication (Criterion 3) remain open. UIP is a candidate framework, not established science. Refutations are solicited as explicitly as confirmations; simulation code is published openly for reviewers to reproduce, vary, and attempt to break every result. Simulation code (open source): https://github.com/derekhone/uip-phase1-testbeds Version 2 adds Appendix C: a preregistered v3 test of inheritance-guided control under restricted access. Predictions were locked before execution. Result: robust pass at weak coupling (+3.5% over best baseline, N=100 seeds); loses at strong coupling. Full boundaries reported. Code: https://github.com/derekhone/uip-phase1-testbeds Version 3 completes Phase 1. Adds Appendices D–G and the synthesis manuscript. D/E: preregistered crossover point and zero-free-parameter law s*(γ) = arcsin(√(γ(1−C̄*)/C̄*)), C̄* = 1/1.45, confirmed across a γ-sweep (r = 0.976), with three-qubit generalization. F: negative result — decision quantities fall 12.19% (v3) and 22.06% (v4) short of a beam-search near-optimal adversary; control-sufficiency claim falsified and closed. G: negative result — C̄* does not transfer to a structure-matched classical system (no crossover exists); universality claim retired. Synthesis manuscript: four confirmed preregistered predictions, three falsified claims. No new physics is claimed. Version 4 adds Appendix H — the first hardware test, run on IBM Quantum (ibm_kingston, Heron r2, job d99brisqp3as739tudkg). The Appendix A fixed-point law, with the per-cycle decay computed from published calibration T2, FAILED its preregistered ±10% kill-condition (predicted D* = 0.0302, measured 0.1463, deviation 383.7%). Diagnosis: bare-idle decay is governed by T2*, not echo-T2; the fixed-point structure (flat steady state) was observed, but the input noise model is falsified on hardware. Sharpened hypothesis H2 (in-situ rate measurement or echo insertion) is preregistrable and left open. Preregistration was committed to the GitHub repository before execution. Ledger: 4 confirmed / 4 falsified — including one rejection delivered by hardware outside our control. FINAL VERSION — PHASE 1 CLOSED (July 12, 2026). This version adds Appendix I (H2a echo-protected hardware test) and the final complete synthesis paper, closing the Phase 1 falsification program. Final ledger: 4 claims confirmed, 5 falsified — including two preregistered hardware rejections of the author's own predictions on IBM Quantum's ibm_kingston processor (Heron r2, 156 qubits), both published unedited the same day. CONFIRMED (simulation): (A) single-qubit recirculation fixed point, steady-state drift predicted analytically within 2%; (C) restricted-access regime where inheritance-guided control is advantageous; (D–E) quantitative crossover law s*(γ), confirmed as preregistered. FALSIFIED: (B) inheritance-guided two-qubit control vs. static baseline, two preregistered versions; (F) near-optimality claim — 12.19% gap vs. a 5% threshold; (G) the universality claim — the word "Unified" was formally retired as a consequence; (H) the fixed-point law with published-calibration inputs on hardware — 383.7% deviation vs. a preregistered ±10% window (job d99brisqp3as739tudkg); (I) the same law with echo-protected idles correcting the diagnosed T2/T2* input error — 81.9% deviation (job Post-closure replication note (2026-07-13): The fixed-point law falsified in Appendix I was re-tested on a second device (ibm_marrakesh, qubit 2, preregistered, job d9airde6hjac73fegau0). Result: FAIL — measured D* = 0.0529 vs. predicted 0.0407 (30.1% deviation). The falsification is device-independent (kingston 81.9%, marrakesh 30.1%). Ledger unchanged: 4 confirmed / 5 falsified.
This preprint reports a preregistered dynamic-circuit quantum-control experiment comparing monitored feedback against matched open-loop control for a four-qubit Kuramoto--XY synchronisation payload. The experiment uses three system qubits, one monitor qubit, and three dynamic rounds to test feedback directly on IBM gate-model hardware. The primary ibm_kingston binary endpoint is negative: the monitored-feedback arm does not improve the selected target relative to the matched open-loop control. The same S1--S1f stack is then replicated on ibm_fez and ibm_marrakesh, where the primary endpoint is positive but direct-observable extensions show backend-dependent YYI and response structure. The contribution is therefore a hardware-control boundary result: it documents where the monitored-feedback policy fails, where it appears to improve the selected target, and why the result should not be interpreted as a simple backend-independent controller promotion. The record includes the source, bibliography, and rebuilt PDF.
This preregistration describes a confirmatory study of an upstream conditioning architecture in a quantum error-correction workflow. The project’s purpose is to test whether an intervention applied prior to the primary decoder produces a real and reproducible decoder-relevant effect, remains compatible with more than one downstream decoder family, generates a measurable exposed-observable statistical footprint, and improves or preserves performance across a preregistered regime rather than only at a single operating point. The study is intentionally limited to architecture-level evaluation, with the public claim set confined to exposed observables, frozen transformations, preregistered statistical tests, explicit negative controls, and bounded interpretation rules. The confirmatory design is organized around five preregistered tests: category existence, decoder compatibility, structural footprint, observable statistical signature, and regime robustness. Across these tests, the central comparison is between a baseline control pipeline and a conditioned pipeline in which the upstream intervention is applied while all non-conditioning settings are held fixed. The study uses frozen observables and frozen execution rules, including matched seeds, shot counts, code distances, physical error rates, geometry, and baseline decoder settings, so that any supported effect can be interpreted as evidence about the architecture under test rather than as a byproduct of post hoc tuning. To preserve a clean-room boundary, the registration restricts primary analysis to exposed, decoder-facing quantities only. These include logical failure, an exposed defect-count summary, and an exposed decoder-difficulty proxy, along with a locked scalar error-load construction derived from control-only standardization. The study does not rely on decoder-internal state variables, hidden confidence traces, or implementation-specific internal diagnostics in its primary confirmatory analyses. This structure is intended to let readers evaluate whether the architecture leaves a reproducible footprint in decoder-facing behavior without disclosing reconstruction-level mechanism details. Expected outcomes are defined in confirmatory rather than speculative terms. If the preregistered hypotheses are supported, the study is expected to provide evidence that an upstream conditioning intervention exists as a real architectural category in QEC, acts before the primary decoder, is compatible with downstream decoding, changes decoder-relevant exposed structure, and produces a reproducible observable statistical footprint in logical-failure behavior. If support is absent, mixed, or null, those outcomes will still be recorded under the frozen rules without rescue through post hoc metric changes, reweighting, or reinterpretation. In either case, the expected result of the registration is a bounded, auditable public record of whether this architecture class shows reproducible category-level behavior under a preregistered confirmatory design. The preregistration is not intended to establish a unique mechanism identity, identify a privileged implementation, disclose implementation-specific reconstruction details, or support claims about exact targeting logic, suppression laws, subset-sizing logic, telemetry-governed control, or broader cross-domain theory narratives. Public-facing interpretation is therefore intentionally limited to category validation and exposed-observable behavior. This is meant to support rigorous public evaluation while preserving strict clean-room limits around protected implementation detail.
SSAF's central falsifiable prediction, NS1, requires that under a witness-confirmed fixed classical context, the reduced dynamics of a probe carry no dependence on the quantum state: all fitted rate parameters are functions of the context alone. This record reports a preregistered pilot execution of the NS1 protocol on the superconducting processor ibm_fez, using target qubit 6 and independent witness qubit 10. The independent context witness passed its two-part gate. Raw stability gave p = 0.3617, and witness-rate homogeneity gave p = 0.9998. The primary endpoint found that one shared affine reduced-evolution law accounted for an informationally complete set of eight target preparations, with a leave-one-out statistic of 176.21 against a parametric-bootstrap null 95% quantile of 253.40 and a cross-validation p-value of 0.6167. The secondary endpoint found no preparation-dependent heterogeneity among six fitted transverse decay rates, with a homogeneity p-value of 0.4003 and a maximum fractional deviation of 2.5%. The result is evidence of consistency with the preregistered NS1 prediction at the stated experimental sensitivity. It is not unique confirmation of SSAF, and it does not exclude state dependence below the achieved resolution. Standard fixed-context open-system quantum mechanics also predicts consistency with this result. The deposited record includes the manuscript, TeX source, submitted Python and notebook protocol, preregistration and preflight records, raw and processed data, machine-readable results, figures, run provenance, licensing information, and checksums. The hardware run was executed on July 17, 2026, with 7,424 shots per effective circuit and 435.0 seconds of QPU usage.
Eight verified quantum computing jobs executed on IBM Quantum hardware (ibm_fez Heron R2, 156 qubits; ibm_torino Heron R1, 133 qubits) between January 27 and March 15, 2026. User ID: IBMid-692001DJRD. Experiments include: 1. Bell State Entanglement — 96.3% fidelity on ibm_fez Heron R2 (Concurrence C = 0.926, Tangle T = 0.858, 1,000 shots). Cross-platform benchmark: Heron R2 vs Heron R1 (+8.3 pp fidelity advantage, noise ratio 2.43×). 2. Reproducibility Test — Two independent runs of identical circuit (χ² = 2.70, p = 0.44, df = 3). H₀ not rejected: statistically indistinguishable results at 95% confidence. 3. BB84 Quantum Key Distribution — Full Alice/Eve/Bob protocol implementation. Alice baseline error 0.60% → Bob QBER 49.0% under eavesdropping (82× degradation). Experimental demonstration of the quantum no-cloning theorem. Control group design isolates eavesdropper signal from hardware noise baseline. 4. Variational Quantum Circuit (VQC) — 2-qubit circuit, 10 trained parameters with tied weights (θ₃ = θ₄), 8 CZ gates in 4 entangling layers. 4-qubit ansatz: Shannon entropy 3.885/4.000 bits (97.1%), ground-state bias confirmed (χ² = 300.94, p ≈ 0). 5. Quantum Random Number Generation (QRNG) — 8-bit outputs, 10/10 unique values per shot (range 16–254). Total: 39,010 quantum measurements across 8 jobs and 10 circuits. QPU time: 4.8 seconds. Job completion rate: 100%. All results decoded from raw IBM SamplerV2 BitArray binary archives (zlib + base64 + NumPy .npy pipeline). No simulations. Statistical validation applied throughout (Wilson 95% CIs, chi-squared tests). Stack: Qiskit Runtime SamplerV2 · QPY · OpenQASM 2.0 · Python · NumPy · SciPy Repository: https://github.com/dinohatibovicWhitepaper: https://dinohatibovic.github.io (Doc QAI-WP-2026-01-28-V4)
We report five preregistered experiments on the IQM Garnet 20-qubit square-lattice processor, each with its decision rule committed before any hardware data existed and each reported regardless of outcome. First, the even-over-odd parity-sector leakage asymmetry previously measured on IBM Heron r2 replicates on Garnet at preregistered power (relative asymmetry +0.068, one-sided p = 1.1 × 10−5). Because the noiseless parity leakage of these number-conserving XY-Trotter circuits is exactly zero, this is a statement about device noise. Second, the asymmetry is not stable: over ten execution windows it varies beyond shot noise at fixed depth (Cochran Q = 19.01 on 9 degrees of freedom, p = 0.025), more strongly when windows are pooled by provider calibration set (p = 0.0083), and an isolated sign reversal at depth 10 does not replicate. Third, a confirmatory campaign that takes the calibration epoch as its independent unit — twelve epochs, 688,128 shots — finds the asymmetry larger at depth 8 than at depth 12 (mean contrast +0.0173, one-sided p = 0.026); the lower bound is +0.0030 and three of twelve epochs have the opposite sign. Fourth, a calibration-aware layout optimiser developed on heavy-hex devices fails its frozen transfer rule: it is better than automatic placement at chain lengths 8 and 16 and worse at 12, and a powered follow-up confirms the reversal. All preregistrations, calibration snapshots, job identifiers, raw counts and analysis scripts are public. All quantum-hardware results were obtained on IQM Garnet through IQM Resonance under an extended-access research grant. Preregistrations, raw counts and analysis code: https://github.com/anulum/scpn-quantum-control