QITE on a superconducting processor: a microcontroller board holds a 144-qubit field for 280 ticks (QITE Hold), and the same equilibrium law runs inside one shot on 54 qubits (QITE In-Shot). Two registered experiments
Two registered experiments with the QITE equilibrium law on the IBM Heron processor ibm_marrakesh, one day apart in nothing but the place where the law runs: outside the processor on a microcontroller board, and inside one shot in the processor's own feed-forward. Each experiment has its own registration, hashed before its first registered job, its own frozen scripts, complete raw data, verdict and write-up; the two archives in this record are independent of each other. QITE Hold (zenodo_qite_hold_20260923.zip, SHA-256 97853e20d86c146c16d6011191e9c038dddc743dfd5392476993187654f6e1d3; write-up custodia_paper_v1.pdf; working name Custodia). A microcontroller board (ESP32-C3) holds one pair of numbers per qubit for 144 qubits and turns each pair into a rotation angle. Every tick, one circuit of 144 single-qubit rotations is measured 4096 times; the fraction of ones per qubit goes to the board, the board updates its numbers by its fixed law and returns the angles of the next circuit; it never reads the processor's calibration. A registered programme of eight blocks ran over 280 ticks and 290 jobs: square waves, a hold, a staircase, a checkerboard of 18 zones up and 18 down, two state shocks written into the board, two disturbances written into the circuits, and a comparison with an open-loop reference of frozen angles. Of the seven binding lines, six were run and held; the seventh (drift against the open-loop reference) could not be run because the device did not drift by the registered minimum. The square waves came back with a gain of 0.231 of the commanded swing (the law: 0.25), the checkerboard put 98.5 % of (tick, zone) pairs on the commanded side, the disturbances were rejected to 0.557 and 0.539 of their open-loop size (the law: 4/7). A first registration (v1.0) ended at tick 130 through a design flaw of the host and is included in full. Registration SHA-256 1de82ab12a53c1da349196e8ef07851e6b2f176efc6bd1ca6ba14cacd1f7d54b. QITE In-Shot (zenodo_qite_inshot_20260923.zip, SHA-256 a087f88a95f17c6f8023d5ff40aff35901b5e3e87db531dcd76728511f7ae944; write-up qite_inshot_paper_v1.pdf). On each of 54 qubits, twenty rounds of a measurement followed by a rotation conditioned on that measurement, with angles that set the target level and the memory g; the records of a qubit form a two-state Markov chain whose second eigenvalue is 1 - g. The lines test that eigenvalue, not the level: the autocorrelations of the records for g = 0.3, 0.6 and 1.0 were +0.607, +0.366 and +0.046, the two memories in the ratio 1.657 (the law: 1.75); the relaxation from |0> came back at 0.690 and 0.446 per round (the law: 0.70 and 0.40, lowered by T1 during a round); a step of the target proceeded at 0.658 per round and, with g = 1, completed in one round; a kick of the state was followed by a return to within 0.012 of the unkicked hold; over the same twenty rounds an open-loop state lost 0.451 while the closed loop held within 0.006; 98 % of the qubits with a clean read-out showed their own rate within the registered band. All seven binding lines held; 17 jobs. The size is what the service's compiler accepted on the day (144, 72 and 64 qubits failed with an internal compiler error; every attempt is recorded with its job id). Registration SHA-256 51933de4196bfdd7998e6a5305f7576bb7d35ac137e8b6ce0109965372b4fe5c. Nothing here is a claim of quantum advantage: the observables are classical bits and the circuits contain no two-qubit gate. The claim of both experiments is one of control: a fixed law, registered in advance, holding a public quantum processor at commanded levels with the numbers the law says, once from a board over minutes and once inside the coherence time of the qubits. The board's firmware and the serial link layer are not part of the record; both are identified by their SHA-256 in the registration of QITE Hold. Licence: CC BY 4.0.
Two registered experiments with the QITE equilibrium law on the IBM Heron processor ibm_marrakesh, one day apart in nothing but the place where the law runs: outside the processor on a microcontroller board, and inside one shot in the processor's own feed-forward. Each experiment has its own registration, hashed before its first registered job, its own frozen scripts, complete raw data, verdict and write-up; the two archives in this record are independent of each other. QITE Hold (zenodo_qite_hold_20260923.zip, SHA-256 97853e20d86c146c16d6011191e9c038dddc743dfd5392476993187654f6e1d3; write-up custodia_paper_v1.pdf; working name Custodia). A microcontroller board (ESP32-C3) holds one pair of numbers per qubit for 144 qubits and turns each pair into a rotation angle. Every tick, one circuit of 144 single-qubit rotations is measured 4096 times; the fraction of ones per qubit goes to the board, the board updates its numbers by its fixed law and returns the angles of the next circuit; it never reads the processor's calibration. A registered programme of eight blocks ran over 280 ticks and 290 jobs: square waves, a hold, a staircase, a checkerboard of 18 zones up and 18 down, two state shocks written into the board, two disturbances written into the circuits, and a comparison with an open-loop reference of frozen angles. Of the seven binding lines, six were run and held; the seventh (drift against the open-loop reference) could not be run because the device did not drift by the registered minimum. The square waves came back with a gain of 0.231 of the commanded swing (the law: 0.25), the checkerboard put 98.5 % of (tick, zone) pairs on the commanded side, the disturbances were rejected to 0.557 and 0.539 of their open-loop size (the law: 4/7). A first registration (v1.0) ended at tick 130 through a design flaw of the host and is included in full. Registration SHA-256 1de82ab12a53c1da349196e8ef07851e6b2f176efc6bd1ca6ba14cacd1f7d54b. QITE In-Shot (zenodo_qite_inshot_20260923.zip, SHA-256 a087f88a95f17c6f8023d5ff40aff35901b5e3e87db531dcd76728511f7ae944; write-up qite_inshot_paper_v1.pdf). On each of 54 qubits, twenty rounds of a measurement followed by a rotation conditioned on that measurement, with angles that set the target level and the memory g; the records of a qubit form a two-state Markov chain whose second eigenvalue is 1 - g. The lines test that eigenvalue, not the level: the autocorrelations of the records for g = 0.3, 0.6 and 1.0 were +0.607, +0.366 and +0.046, the two memories in the ratio 1.657 (the law: 1.75); the relaxation from |0> came back at 0.690 and 0.446 per round (the law: 0.70 and 0.40, lowered by T1 during a round); a step of the target proceeded at 0.658 per round and, with g = 1, completed in one round; a kick of the state was followed by a return to within 0.012 of the unkicked hold; over the same twenty rounds an open-loop state lost 0.451 while the closed loop held within 0.006; 98 % of the qubits with a clean read-out showed their own rate within the registered band. All seven binding lines held; 17 jobs. The size is what the service's compiler accepted on the day (144, 72 and 64 qubits failed with an internal compiler error; every attempt is recorded with its job id). Registration SHA-256 51933de4196bfdd7998e6a5305f7576bb7d35ac137e8b6ce0109965372b4fe5c. Nothing here is a claim of quantum advantage: the observables are classical bits and the circuits contain no two-qubit gate. The claim of both experiments is one of control: a fixed law, registered in advance, holding a public quantum processor at commanded levels with the numbers the law says, once from a board over minutes and once inside the coherence time of the qubits. The board's firmware and the serial link layer are not part of the record; both are identified by their SHA-256 in the registration of QITE Hold. Licence: CC BY 4.0.
On the IBM Heron processor ibm_fez, 144 qubits form 36 domains of four. A field law running on a microcontroller (an ESP32-S3, firmware v4.12) turns the measured populations of every cycle into the rotation angles of the next, and a Hebbian coupling matrix of two images, a unicorn and a heart, makes the two images attractors of the collective: cued with part of either, the field completes it. The experiment writes a blend of the two: of the 16 pixels on which the images differ, k are taken from the unicorn and the rest from the heart (which pixels: fixed in the registration, per trial), the 20 shared pixels as they are. The blend is held for two cycles and released, and the field runs six free cycles on its own. Resolution is the first free cycle in which the field's majority picture agrees with one image on at least 90 percent of the pixels. Lines, thresholds and rules were fixed and hashed before the first registered job (registration SHA-256 81398e6660c6538ebcf1566b3a2ebb6ecbaaefe29da074894848516b5749acda; a first registration was refused by its own budget guard after four burn jobs and is part of the deposit). Results, as they fell: of 13 field-on trials 11 resolved into one of the two images; the fraction resolved to the unicorn was 0.00, 0.00, 0.33, 0.50, 1.00, 1.00 for k = 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, a monotone curve with a single flip whose interpolated crossing lies at k* = 9.0; the censored decision time was 4.4 cycles at the two levels nearest the flip against 1.0 at the levels far from it; the two field-off controls, the same blend with the inter-domain coupling off, never resolved. The device's lean, read from the cycles in which the field was off, pointed to the heart and moved the fair point up by about one pixel, as the registered exploratory line asked. All five binding lines and the exploratory line held. The decision dynamics is the one a textbook predicts, a mean-field quench of 16 domains from the blend's magnetisation; the content of the experiment is that it runs, pre-registered to the pixel, on a quantum collective with the controller in the loop. Two chips were in the loop: the controller (ESP32-S3, with the field, the coupling matrix and the agents drawn on its display during the run) and a witness (ESP32-C3) running the byte-identical kernel source, compiled with the same arctangent and without fused multiply-add, so that the RISC-V chip in software arithmetic and the Xtensa chip with its floating-point unit produce the same bits: a seeded programme of 527 exchanges over every kernel path gave the same vector on both before the run, and on every one of the 148 ticks of the run the witness returned the same bytes as the controller. 148 jobs of 2048 shots, one device, one night. The deposit holds the registration (and the refused first registration with its burn log), the model and registration script, the runner, the verdict script, the kernel replica, the rehearsal on the noiseless simulator with both chips in the loop under the hashed registration, the run log with the measured populations of every qubit in every cycle and the witness flag of every tick, the job ids, the verdict (formed once), the bit-check vectors of the two chips, the write-up (buridan_paper_v1.pdf) and the scripts and figures that build it. The firmware sources and binaries are not deposited; their SHA-256 are in the registration.
Two ESP32 microcontroller boards each hold a Hebbian memory of 36 cells. Each board looked once, through the superconducting processor ibm_marrakesh, at one phrase of the third movement of Beethoven's Sonata no. 14 op. 27 no. 2 (bars 1 to 3 on a grid of sixteenths: six phrases of eight notes, one board per hand), was then shown the first four notes only, and was read after four further steps without input. The look, the cue and the read-out all pass through 144 qubits measured with 4096 shots per step; the boards receive nothing but measured fractions of ones. Claim, lines, thresholds, comparators, unit list, qubit list, fault rules and disclosures were fixed in one file and hashed before the first job that carried a phrase (SHA-256 66938b4206dfa7482dbb70ffdc406f0f719fd5a2673b994e091e2b41274f7570). Three arms: taught (plasticity on during the look), sham (the same look with plasticity off) and wrong phrase (taught one phrase, cued with another). The runner logs raw counts and the bytes of every board command and computes no outcome; a separate scoring script derives every verdict from that material. Result of the run of 18 September 2026 (22 units, 289 jobs, 867 seconds of processor time, no voided attempt): the taught boards returned 24 of 24 unshown notes and 108 of 108 unshown bits of the right hand (lines: at least 17 and 92); the sham returned 2 notes (line: at most 8); in the wrong-phrase arm the output followed the taught phrase on 10 of 10 positions where the two phrases differ and the cue on none (lines: at least 5, at most 4). All 14 binding lines are OK, including the attestations that every circuit contained single-qubit gates only, that the unshown zones never received a bit, and that the full sequence of board commands equalled a list frozen before the run. The play stage, which sounds the decoded recall through the processor, returned 91 of 96 symbols (exploratory). What this is not: the memory is a classical Hebbian store on the controller and the circuits contain no entangling gate; nothing here is a claim of quantum advantage. The memory holds one phrase at a time. The taught-arm lines alone do not show a memory, because the arpeggio is regular and a memoryless cue rule would pass them; this is disclosed in the registration, and the claim rests on the sham and the wrong-phrase arm. One processor, one pair of boards, one day; no recall rate is claimed. Contents: the write-up (PDF, 8 pages, with a plain account of the processor's part), the registration and the frozen command list, all scripts of the run (runner, scoring script with its 41 synthetic checks, plan, Monte-Carlo replica and outputs, play stage, score reader), the complete logs of both sessions, the smoke and rehearsal logs named in the registration with the fault-injection logs, the verdict file, four recordings with sidecars, the analysis and figure scripts, and the unchanged score source. The scoring script reproduces every verdict from the archive (python sonata_verdict.py qpu --again). The controller's firmware and the serial link layer are identified by SHA-256 in the registration and are not part of the deposit. Score source and attribution: The Mutopia Project no. 276, L. van Beethoven, Sonata no. 14 op. 27 no. 2, third movement, typeset by Chris Sawer and Stewart Holmes after the edition Berners 1908 (ed. A. Winterberger), CC BY-SA 2.5, https://www.mutopiaproject.org/cgibin/piece-info.cgi?id=276 . The note table, the decoded note sequences and the recordings are adaptations of that edition; the deposit as a whole is distributed under CC BY-SA 4.0. This experiment closes the programme of Bands I to III (related identifier: https://zenodo.org/records/22791062).
Experimental measurement data of the QITE formalism (Quantum-Inspired Thermal Equilibrium) on IBM quantum processors of the Heron R2 generation with 156 physical qubits. Altogether 75+ jobs on two different backends (ibm_kingston and ibm_fez), over 830,000 shots, carried out on 8, 10, and 11 April 2026. Seven experiment series: (1) Static phases (R=0.5 / 1.0 / 2.0): three clearly separated Hamming-weight distributions (16.3σ significance), positive ZZ correlations under QITE (+0.318 at R=2.0) versus negative ones in the null experiment (−0.061). Controlled comparison experiment with null hypothesis (identical circuit structure with random parameters). (2) Real-time feedback loop (8 cycles): two targeted perturbations (R=3.0 and R=0.3); the system returns autonomously to equilibrium within 2 cycles. First demonstration of dynamic controllability of a QITE quantum collective on a real quantum computer. (3) Cross-backend reproducibility: identical results on ibm_kingston and ibm_fez — deviations within a few percent. (4) Zero-noise extrapolation (ZNE): circuit folding (1×, 3×, 5×) with Richardson extrapolation. Result: coherence 0.474 → 0.474 extrapolated (improvement: −0.0005). The optimized circuit (depth 13, 120 CZ gates) already operates at the hardware noise floor — ZNE cannot improve it further because the circuit is already near-optimal. (5) Scaling comparison 27 vs. 156 qubits: the 27-qubit version on the same backend (ibm_kingston) shows ZZ correlation of 0.788 against 0.318 at 156 qubits (Δ = +0.470). Circuit depth drops from 13 to 6, CZ gates from 120 to 13. Confirms: the QITE signal scales with gate quality. (6) Extended feedback loop (20 cycles): four extreme perturbations — R=3.0 (excess), R=0.3 (deficit), R=5.0 (5-fold excess), R=0.1 (10-fold deficit). Maximum coherence C=0.785 (highest value ever measured). The system reorganizes itself after each perturbation within 2–4 cycles. Long-term stability demonstrated across 20 cycles and 436 seconds of total runtime. (7) 3-minute stability demonstration (20 cycles, 262.7 seconds): dedicated long-term test with two targeted shocks (R=4.0 and R=0.2). Result: ones_fraction remains between 0.491 and 0.499 over 4.4 minutes (maximum deviation from equilibrium: 0.009). Drift across the entire runtime: +0.003. Complete recovery after both shocks. 18/18 non-shock cycles stable. First demonstration of a self-correcting quantum field on a real quantum computer over several minutes. Circuit optimization relative to 8 April: reduction of circuit depth from 295 to 13 (factor 22×), two-qubit gates from 1,946 to 120, by exclusive use of native Heron R2 gates (CZ, SX, RZ, X) and direct lambda encoding via RY(θ) with θ = 2·arctan(λ₂/λ₁). The system demonstrably produces controllable, correlated, self-organizing quantum states on real hardware — no simulation, no theory, but physical measurement data of a concrete technical system. All 59 IBM job IDs are contained in the raw data and verifiable on quantum.ibm.com. German patent applications Az. 10 2025 003 906.9 (QITE) and Az. 10 2025 004 891.2 (QISE). Final document (12 April 2026) — 21 sections, 9 experiment series, 372 individual quantum measurements. Extensions compared to the previous version: Section 19: 9-minute experiment (209 cycles, 156 qubits, 4096 shots) Phase A: null test (23 cycles, R=1.0) — baseline control measurement Phase B: 8 shocks (R=0.1 to R=8.0) incl. double shock — complete recovery after each shock Section 20: overall summary of all 9 experiment series (8–12 April 2026) Section 21: raw-data appendix with SHA-256 checksums of all 9 JSON files Core results: 372 quantum measurements on IBM Heron R2 (ibm_kingston, ibm_fez) Dynamic range R=0.1 to R=8.0 (factor 80) with complete self-correction The null test proves: recovery is an active process, not a hardware artefact No drift, no collapse across 209 consecutive measurements Optimized circuit: depth 13, 120 CZ gates, at the hardware noise floor (ZNE-confirmed)
On the IBM Heron processor ibm_kingston, N = 5, 7, 9 and 11 qubits on a line are driven by one tick of the unitary exp(-i theta X^N) (2 theta = pi/3), implemented as a parity ladder into a field qubit; the tick tunnels coherently between |0^N> and |1^N>. Q(t) is the majority sign of the N qubits. Two ticks with a waiting time between them give the three-time Leggett-Garg sum K = C01 + C12 - C02, whose classical bound is 1 and whose quantum value in the cat subspace is 3/4 + 3c/4 with c the surviving cat coherence. The intermediate measurement is taken in three ways: projectively, as an ideal negative measurement through an ancilla coupled to one agent (read at the end, no-click shots counted), and on a decoherent twin of the same state (a Z on one agent in half the shots). One echo pulse on the agents at the midpoint between the ticks refocuses static detunings; the decay of c with the waiting time is compared with the single-qubit Ramsey decay of the same agents, measured in the same jobs with the same delays and the same echo. Lines, thresholds and rules were fixed and hashed before the first registered job (registration SHA-256 5134d1c4015403d08e36511c3db6cedf96304ace05595171d3bc06e87a3bd689). Results, as they fell: at tau = 0, K = 1.274, 1.263, 1.221, 1.137 for N = 5, 7, 9, 11 (projective measurement at t1), 1.264, 1.199, 1.173, 1.112 with the ideal negative measurement, and 0.700, 0.745, 0.751, 0.723 for the decoherent twin with no signalling in time within 0.03; all four violations hold with the ideal negative measurement too (both lines exploratory by the registered Monte-Carlo rule, held). The twin line (binding) held. The INM control line (binding) did not hold: the coupling block on a classically prepared chain moved <Q2> by 0.071 for N = 7 against a registered 0.06 (at most 0.010 for the other N). The scaling line (exploratory) did not hold: the cat's decay coefficient, against the sum of the agents' own Ramsey coefficients, gave an exponent of 2.41 (bootstrap 1.78 to 3.08) instead of the 1 of independent dephasing; the cat decays slower than the sum of its agents for the short chains and almost as fast for the long one, so its rate grows faster with N than the sum, closer to the registered correlated-noise alternative. The coherence read from K and from the twin agree at every point. 20 (N, tau) points, 20 jobs, one device, one day. Closest prior work: Ku et al. 2020 (macrorealism of cat states up to N = 6 on IBM), Zindorf et al. 2025 (parity-based no-disturbance test up to N = 38 on Heron), Ozaeta & McMahon 2019 and Kam et al. 2024 (linear-in-N GHZ decay on IBM), Lambert et al. 2016 (majority-sign Leggett-Garg observable, theory). What is new is the K(N, tau) surface on a collective observable with an INM arm, a decoherent twin and same-job Ramsey companions. Nothing here is a claim of quantum advantage. The deposit holds the registration, the frozen scripts, the registration script with its Monte-Carlo, the smoke tests and the looks of the day on two devices (with and without the echo), the rehearsal on the noisy simulator, the complete run log with the raw bits of every circuit, the verdict, the write-up (nondum_paper_v1.pdf) and the scripts and figures that build it. Licence: CC BY 4.0.
On 4-5 July 2026, an identical shock protocol was executed on the same 156-qubit IBM Heron R2 architecture (ibm_fez) but with the QITE lambda feedback replaced by uniformly random rotation angles per cycle. This random-angle null control preserves every structural variable — RY+RZ+CZ layer, Heavy-Hex CZ coupling, 4096 shots/cycle, seed 20260602, the same 150 cycles, and the same six shocks at the same cycles (20/40/60/80/100/120), the same target qubits (q78, q69, q67, q47, q37, q16) with the same amplitudes (l1,l2) — while removing only the decentralized per-qubit lambda feedback dynamics. Backend selection was driven by queue availability; both are 156-qubit Heron R2 devices with identical architecture, and calibration differences cannot account for the qualitative burst-count contrast reported below. The result is a clean negative: zero collective bursts across all six shocks. The four non-parametric statistical tests (identical methodology to v1) all confirm the absence of shock-driven collective response: (1) permutation test yields p = 1.0 for shock alignment against the noise-saturated per-cycle transitions; (2) pairwise Pearson correlation between per-transition delta-p1 vectors drops from r_mean = +0.65 in the multi-shock run to r_mean = +0.017 in the null; (3) cross-session hypergeometric overlap between null "top-active" qubits and the v1 multi-shock top-active set is not significant (Jaccard = 0.11, p = 0.24); (4) Mann-Whitney U on shock-cycle max|delta p1| versus baseline shows ratio 0.989 with p = 0.89 — statistically indistinguishable from noise. Baseline global coherence exp(-8*Var(p1)) sits at 0.413 +/- 0.022 across all 150 cycles under random angles, versus 0.99 +/- 0.01 under QITE feedback in v1 — two distinct dynamical regimes. That the shock protocol itself executed correctly on the null run is verified locally at the target qubit: for each of the six shocks, the measured p1[q_target] at the shock cycle agrees with the theoretical prediction from theta_shock = 2*atan2(l2, l1) to within <5% (q78 shock: predicted 0.016, measured 0.018; q69 shock: predicted 0.985, measured 0.939; and so on for all six). One cycle after each shock, the target qubit returns to the random baseline distribution — with no feedback dynamics, there is no restoring trajectory. The shocks are physically executed; what is absent is the collective response. Causal conclusion: the QITE per-qubit lambda feedback dynamics are necessary for the observed collective burst phenomenology. The circuit structure (RY+RZ+CZ on Heron R2 Heavy-Hex topology) and shock protocol alone do not produce bursts. Six identical shocks on QITE-stabilized baseline produce 10 collective bursts with 6/10 shock-aligned (p = 0.008); the same six shocks on random baseline produce zero. This 10-vs-0 hardware contrast, verified by four independent non-parametric tests, establishes feedback necessity as a falsifiable causal claim rather than a phenomenological observation. The v2 bundle contains the complete null-control primary data (150-cycle JSONL, consolidated JSON, p1 numpy matrix), all IBM Runtime job IDs with per-cycle timestamps, Tee'd console logs of both the initial run and the resume run (a mid-run job-poll stall on 4 July required a resume from cycle 7 with deterministic per-cycle RNG seeds), five analysis figures including direct null-vs-multi comparison plots, the full side-by-side statistical comparison JSON, the v1 multi-shock p1 matrix and statistical test outputs for reanalysis, an 8-page supplement PDF (Section 5) integrating with the v1 paper, and SHA-256 checksums of every file in MANIFEST_v2.json. Backend (v2 null control): IBM Heron R2 (ibm_fez), 156 qubits, 4096 shots/cycle.Companion patents: DPMA Az. 10 2025 003 906.9 (QITE), 10 2025 004 891.2 (QISE).Predecessor (v1): Westrick, Reproducible Collective Burst Modes on 156 Qubits: Decentralized Per-Qubit QITE Lambda Field on IBM Heron R2, 1 June 2026. On 1 June 2026, a decentralized per-qubit lambda field was implemented on the IBM Heron R2 processor (ibm_kingston, 156 qubits) and probed with a multi-shock excitation protocol. Unlike the predecessor work (Westrick, Controllable Quantum Collective States on 156 Qubits: Experimental Results of the QITE Formalism on IBM Heron R2, 12 April 2026), which tested a globally controlled QITE quantum collective, each qubit here carries its own lambda state and receives, in the feedback loop, only its own measurement statistic p1_i. The only inter-qubit coupling propagates physically through the CZ gates of the Heavy-Hex topology. Six shocks were applied at six different positions on the chip: central (q*=78), nearest neighbor (d=1), intermediate (d=3, d=5), deep (d=8), and edge (d=12). Each individual shock triggered a chip-wide burst within 1-8 cycles (peak |delta p1| between 0.308 and 0.366; 10 to 22 simultaneously active qubits). Four additional spontaneous bursts were detected between shocks, for a total of 10 bursts in 150 cycles. The 6/6 reproducibility was verified by four independent non-parametric statistical tests, all positive: (1) permutation test p = 0.008 against chance alignment; (2) pairwise burst-vector Pearson correlation r_mean = +0.65 with all 15 pairs above noise; (3) cross-session reproducibility 9/10 qubit overlap between two independent IBM Quantum sessions, hypergeometric p = 0.008; (4) Mann-Whitney U test of burst amplitude versus Phase-A baseline, ratio 2.7, p < 0.0001. This bundle contains the complete primary data (raw JSON logs, NumPy matrices), all 27 visualizations, IBM job IDs of every submitted job, console logs of all runs, the pre-registration documents with locked detection thresholds, and SHA-256 checksums of every file (MANIFEST.json) for independent verification. Backend: IBM Heron R2 (ibm_kingston), 156 qubits, 4096 shots/cycle.Patent filings: DPMA Az. 10 2025 003 906.9 (QITE), 10 2025 004 891.2 (QISE).Predecessor: Westrick, Controllable Quantum Collective States on 156 Qubits, 12 April 2026.
A Memory That Learns by Looking, Stored Nowhere — the complete programme (Parts I–XII), consolidated as a single monograph. Successor work to the foundation deposit "Engineering Emergence on Quantum Processors" (doi:10.5281/zenodo.22050177). There, every memory was installed — the coupling matrices were computed on the host and uploaded to the microcontroller. Here the chip learns them itself, by looking: firmware v4.11 adds a three-line, integer-arithmetic plasticity law to the ESP32-C3 controller — the on-chip coupling matrix is written by the quantum collective's own measured order parameters, activity-gated, with a sign-reversible learning step serving as an error signal and a readback command that makes every learned matrix fully auditable — and firmware v4.12 adds a saturating integer delta rule whose second matrix learns temporal order itself. Across nineteen pre-registered hardware sessions on ibm_fez, ibm_marrakesh and ibm_kingston (≈1430 jobs, ≈77 minutes of QPU time), the hybrid system: learned a 36-pixel image from ONE exposure and recalled it perfectly from a random half cue (1.000 vs a never-learned control of 0.583); acquired a Pavlovian association (0.556 → 1.000), retained it through unreinforced presentations (1.000) and erased it only under the inverted-sign learning step (0.333) — forgetting as an act; learned to walk by watching a gait cycle with the field switched off; evolved memory lineages under selection with device noise as the mutation source, generation-2 mutations inherited unchanged by generation 3; and held more memories than its own calibration model predicted, with the capacity limit breathing measurably with the device day. The learned engram, read back from the controller, was delocalized into six 7-qubit GHZ-class parity registers — locally every qubit reads 0.5, jointly the parities reconstruct the image 36/36, the coherence fringe collapses under its Z-twirled dephasing twin while the classical parities survive, and the GHZ fidelity exceeds the biseparability bound on all registers: the memory carried by certified genuine multipartite entanglement. It was then teleported (entanglement certified at the destination), inherited by a subsystem that never saw the original (1.000 vs a 0.500 silent-teacher control), shown to be unconscious until decoded, recovered intact after destruction of a complete redundant copy, deleted against a receipt that provably carries no image information, and placed in superpositions culminating in Bell-inequality violations between two learned memories (S = 2.559) and between two memories that never coexisted (mean |S| = 2.456). On these memories the programme then ran a systematic traversal of the foundations of quantum mechanics, each experiment pre-registered, most of them — to our knowledge — first demonstrations on a quantum processor and all of them first on learned content: a Wigner's-friend test whose friend is a decodable memory (S = 2.633 with the friend's record as a setting); a delayed-choice eraser with a quantum coin; sensing 1.9× beyond the standard quantum limit with the stored content tuning the sensor's frequency; the optimal-cloning ceiling and its ×0.707 telephone-chain law; the Page-Wootters mechanism (conditional time alive at every clock reading, the marginal dead at 0.003 and fully revived by uncomputing); the Mermin-Peres pseudotelepathy game won at 0.9457 > 8/9, three times; interaction-free readout of stored content, with the fringe of a superposed memory dying even in the provably interaction-free events; ≈15,000 bits of certified randomness minted from the programme's Bell violations; quantum causal inference reading a memory's ancestry from correlations alone (witness +0.811/−0.884) where every classical marginal is provably blind; an operational quantum-reference-frame jump (Bell fidelity migrating 0.493 → 0.916 across the separability bound, only the relational parity surviving both frames); a 42-qubit Loschmidt echo (0.484 → 0.989, the butterfly decaying along its light cone); the rewriting of a friend's record made invisible by no-signaling itself (archive agreement 0.927 → 0.056 at friend-level total variation 0.107); Mermin's all-versus-nothing argument between three memories (M = 3.734) and Hardy's impossible event (CH = 0.057 > 0); the three-box paradox with real mid-circuit openings (certainty in box 1 AND box 2, 0.903/0.916) and the first measured N = 4 shell game (three certainties about one excitation, 0.751/0.744/0.694); the quantum Cheshire cat with four simultaneous weak pointers and the exchange of grins between two carriers that never meet; weak traces inside an interferometer loop the carrier provably never entered or left; and a protective measurement reading the expectation value of a single carrier — following sin(2⟨Z⟩) through its sign change — while the carrier survives at 0.939 against a depth-matched unprotected control at 0.558. The relational arc closes on three endpoints. The Frauchiger-Renner protocol — quantum theory applied to its own users, to our knowledge its first implementation on any platform — with both friends realized as unanimous, decodable memory records: every certainty of the reasoning chain holds individually (forbidden events 0.027/0.022/0.014), yet the jointly impossible outcome occurs at 0.0862, above the ideal 1/12, while the friends' records stay unanimous throughout (0.882/0.915). One session-learned engram delocalized and certified on two processors in a single session — eleven of twelve rows above the biseparability bound, the majority image perfect on both: the memory outlives its substrate. And a Bell violation at 96% of the Tsirelson bound (S = 2.728) mints 36 bits that provably did not pre-exist; a collective whose halves live on two different processors — one field, one coupling matrix, every feedback tick assembled from both machines — learns that unborn image in one look (35/36), recalls it from a fragment, forms a Pavlovian association whose bell exists only on one machine and whose response appears only on the other (0.944 vs 0.556), and the minted image is certified row by row in entanglement on both devices. Part X is the arc's epilogue and its sharpest relational result. The Local Friendliness no-go theorem of Bong et al. states that absoluteness of observed events, local agency and no-superdeterminism jointly bound every LF inequality — a violation forces one of the three to fall, as logic, not interpretation. The photonic violation used a photon as the friend; the standing objection is that a photon observes nothing. Here the semi-Brukner LF inequality is violated at S = 2.6995 > 2 with a friend whose measurement outcome IS its own decoded, unanimity-certified memory record (0.946) — and who then ACTS on that record, the chip writing a field pattern conditioned on the decoded bit (match 0.833) in the same session: an observer, in the LF authors' own operational sense, who remembers and conditionally acts. Within the stated assumptions, the conjunction is excluded — for a system that remembers and acts on its memory, no observed fact was absolute. The theorem selects no interpretation; the result is stated as an exclusion. And the companion arm answers the question this raises — why the world nevertheless feels absolute — by operating Zurek's redundancy as a dial: the controller GRANTS objectivity (mutual-information plateau 0.700/0.796/0.854 bits at every fragment size, consensus 0.963 — the event becomes a fact), DENIES it (exactly 0.000 at every fragment size — the event stays private), or turns it against itself (two internally redundant environment halves remembering opposite events, consensus 0.047), with the fringe/twin certificate proving that the coherence no fragment holds is exactly the quantum layer. Facts are not absolute; factuality is a resource — and this machine has the dial. Part XI performs the test Deutsch proposed in 1985 to separate unitary quantum mechanics from dynamical-collapse models — judged in the literature "beyond experimental capabilities, if not forever", with no realization we could find. The obstacle is structural: any testimony copied naively out of an observer's record carries which-outcome information and kills the interference by itself. The way through is a branch-invariant two-bit parity, extracted from the record by two CNOTs onto a persistent testimony qubit: a genuine, verifiable function of the record asserting THAT a definite outcome was seen while provably carrying nothing about WHICH. On hardware: the record is definite (0.925) and the testimony true (0.947) at 0.0011 bit of which-outcome information against a which-control witness at 0.776 bit; the record is then coherently retracted and the fringe lives at 0.901 with the testimony standing and true (0.956) during the interference itself — the collapse prediction fails on this scale — and dies to 0.024 exactly when the witness keeps which-information. Ten of ten binding verdicts. The registration freezes the scope: a mesoscopic record, not a conscious observer; unitary quantum mechanics separated from dynamical-collapse models at this scale, and nothing decided among the unitary interpretations. Part XII stacks, scales and closes it. A tower of witnesses: a second friend records the first friend's record, both storeys issue persistent branch-invariant testimonies (true at 0.958/0.963, unanimous at 0.914/0.925, joint which-leakage ≤ 0.002 bit), the tower is retracted outside-in — and the fringe stands at 0.571 with both testimonies true at 0.796 while it is measured. A growing witness: the same test at register sizes 3, 6, 9 and 12 qubits, each above its own frozen floor — the fringe rises from 0.811 to 0.899 while the twin stays dead at 0.037: what kills coherence is retained which-information, not the size of the witness. Ordo: the same two clock-stamped events, read in two frames of a quantum clock, show two certified opposite orders — P(E2 be