Whether a quantum proof outperforms a classical one — both checked by the same efficient quantum verifier — is a question answered, so far, only relative to oracles. Beneath that answer is a structure with no quantum content at all: the difference between a resource one can copy and one one cannot. We show that this difference is cohomological. A witness that carries a copy map collapses every verifier to a memoryless sampler, so its distinguishing power is a functional of k-wise marginals alone; the obstruction to copying is a Čech class on a cover of a state by its measurement bases, and the Forrelation function of Aaronson and Ambainis is exactly the transition cocycle of that cover. The separation holds precisely when the class is nonzero: invisible from inside any single copyable chart, where it is a coboundary, and visible to the linear witness that reads the whole cover at once. Four familiar facts turn out to be four faces of the same class. Its non-vanishing is the no-cloning theorem; the dimension of its kernel is the Landauer erasure cost of the witness register; its representative on the standard/Hadamard cover is Forrelation; and the collapse of the copyable verifier onto one chart is why a classical witness, for these problems, cannot win. We make each face a finite, exactly computed certificate: on a corpus of distinguishing tasks built from Heisenberg–Weyl orbits, every depth-two adaptive sampler has advantage exactly zero — a total quantification over the strategy space, not a sampled estimate — while the linear witness reads a squared-Forrelation gap the kernel computes from truth tables through the Hadamard transform. Two independent exact computations agree on every verdict, and the engine that results either returns a gap two exact paths both certify, or refuses — and a refusal carries its own evidence, a certificate of exactly the obstruction that stopped it. The asymptotic separation of the underlying family is not ours; we cite it. What is ours is the identification — that a separation of complexity classes is, at bottom, a hole. All results below are machine-checked in Lean 4; the formal record and its axiom footprint are described in Section 8. The paper is legible in mathematics alone. Published by The Institute for Applied Ontological Mathematics.
Whether a quantum proof outperforms a classical one — both checked by the same efficient quantum verifier — is a question answered, so far, only relative to oracles. Beneath that answer is a structure with no quantum content at all: the difference between a resource one can copy and one one cannot. We show that this difference is cohomological. A witness that carries a copy map collapses every verifier to a memoryless sampler, so its distinguishing power is a functional of k-wise marginals alone; the obstruction to copying is a Čech class on a cover of a state by its measurement bases, and the Forrelation function of Aaronson and Ambainis is exactly the transition cocycle of that cover. The separation holds precisely when the class is nonzero: invisible from inside any single copyable chart, where it is a coboundary, and visible to the linear witness that reads the whole cover at once. Four familiar facts turn out to be four faces of the same class. Its non-vanishing is the no-cloning theorem; the dimension of its kernel is the Landauer erasure cost of the witness register; its representative on the standard/Hadamard cover is Forrelation; and the collapse of the copyable verifier onto one chart is why a classical witness, for these problems, cannot win. We make each face a finite, exactly computed certificate: on a corpus of distinguishing tasks built from Heisenberg–Weyl orbits, every depth-two adaptive sampler has advantage exactly zero — a total quantification over the strategy space, not a sampled estimate — while the linear witness reads a squared-Forrelation gap the kernel computes from truth tables through the Hadamard transform. Two independent exact computations agree on every verdict, and the engine that results either returns a gap two exact paths both certify, or refuses — and a refusal carries its own evidence, a certificate of exactly the obstruction that stopped it. The asymptotic separation of the underlying family is not ours; we cite it. What is ours is the identification — that a separation of complexity classes is, at bottom, a hole. All results below are machine-checked in Lean 4; the formal record and its axiom footprint are described in Section 8. The paper is legible in mathematics alone. Published by The Institute for Applied Ontological Mathematics.
Computation is usually drawn in two columns. A classical machine holds exact, copyable, fully readable data but has no amplitude structure. A quantum machine holds amplitude structure but forbids copying, forbids full-state readout, and collapses on measurement. The space between them — amplitude structure on copyable exact data — is assumed empty. This paper reports that the coprime arithmetic substrate occupies exactly that middle, gives the theory of why it can, and reduces it to practice in six ways. That the structure is genuinely quantum — real entanglement, not classical correlation in disguise — is measured on the substrate's own operators by the standard witnesses of non-classicality: the σ⊗τ Bell state reaches the Tsirelson bound (CHSH = 2√2, the algebraic maximum no local-hidden-variable model can attain); the three-party GHZ test returns the Mermin value 4.00 against a local-realistic bound of 2; the resource is strictly non-signaling; and the two-qubit Bell entropy is a full 1.000 bit — all to machine precision on copyable, integer-exact data. PART I — THE THEORY. The Scalar-Blindness Theorem: the substrate's non-Abelian content is operator-real yet provably invisible to every scalar instrument. Each prime carries a real-orthogonal carrier in SO(4) = SU(2)_L × SU(2)_R; the operator twist [V_p, V_q] is nonzero, yet every scalar functional of a pair is order-blind — Tr(V_p·V_q) = Tr(V_q·V_p) exactly — because the trace's order-invariance group contains the cyclic group, and n! = n only for n ≤ 2. The content first reaches a scalar at three bodies, as the so(4) structure constant O₃. Every classical instrument is a scalar functional, so its failure to see the content is a corollary, not a verdict on the content. The keystone (a causal localization): the cross-prime twist is sourced by the additive–multiplicative commutator [+,×]. Removing it from a faithful, operator-exact reconstruction collapses the twist by 253×–2334×. The weld: the carrier register is the already-published σ⊗τ register, reproducing its fine-structure table to under 1% at every floor; the scalar reading fades up the primorial tower while the operator reading persists. The Colored-Yang–Baxter Normality Theorem: the rigid, classically-readable braid backbone (a single-particle normality property) is tensor-insulated from the order-carrying payload (a two-particle property), so quantum payload and classical-readable topology coexist without fine-tuning. PART II — SIX REDUCTIONS TO PRACTICE, each occupying a regime neither column reaches: Branching search — substrate-native Grover at the exact √N query scaling, then read-all / adapt / clone / rewind on the running search, which no-cloning and measurement collapse forbid a quantum register. Address-gated multicast — one transmission to M receivers at fidelity 1, each decoding only under a floor-specific key a classical machine cannot compute (a 3-adic obstruction) and a quantum machine cannot transport (the cross-floor map is not a function). A statistics-blind directed relational store — a directed relation stored as classical, cloneable data whose direction no two-body statistic of the representation can read, built into a writable, queryable, validated knowledge graph. Topological braiding and universal quantum computation — a genuine non-Abelian anyon braiding on copyable exact data, from which the full stack is built: universal gates (Clifford braiding + the flash magic gate), Bell/GHZ entanglement, and a [[5,1,3]] fault-tolerant logical qubit at zero magic-distillation overhead — each cloned and read in full — composed into a center-less cislunar coordination fabric. Quantum algorithms and readout — the Quantum Fourier transform, phase estimation, and period-finding on the universal gate set, with the full Born-rule distribution read exactly from one state, without collapse. Open-system computation — an engineered Lindbladian whose unique steady state solves a problem, with the full non-equilibrium density matrix read and cloned; its dissipative generator is the polar partner of the scalar-blind twist, so the substrate is natively an open system. Every empirical claim is byte-gated against ground truth. The mathematics — the theorems, identities, and constructions — is dedicated to the public domain under the MIT license and reproduces from the definitions stated in the paper. The engineering apparatus that mints and practices these primitives is reserved. Companion provisional patent: U.S. Provisional Application No. 64/103,049 (the Entanglement Fabric), filed July 1, 2026.
Four questions sit at the base of fault-tolerant quantum computing: whether a code with given parameters can exist, whether two circuits denote the same operation, how much entropy a measurement irreversibly produces, and whether a compiled gate still means what it should. They are normally answered by four disjoint techniques. We show they are one technique. In each case the answer is an invariant—the object a governing transformation leaves fixed—and that invariant can be held as a certificate a proof kernel checks and an operator-native substrate computes. The instruments are the quantum weight enumerator, whose shadow variant yields what is, to our knowledge, the first machine-checked nonexistence certificate for a quantum error-correcting code (no pure [[4, 1, 3]] stabilizer code, reduced to an integer impossibility); the spider normal form, unique both as a linear map and as a content-addressed tree, at the minimal axiomatic footprint of a proof assistant; the measurement boundary defect, whose logical entropy equals a kernel-counted cohomology dimension; and the reduction receipt, round-tripping a certified gate word to bare metal on two independent substrates. Everything downstream of the explicitly labelled modeling step in each domain is exact integer or rational arithmetic. The common shape—find the invariant the transformation fixes, and read it off as a certificate—turns four hard quantum questions into arithmetic a machine can hold. Published by The Institute for Applied Ontological Mathematics.
A computational claim you cannot recompute is hearsay. We ask what a certified answer must be so that anyone can recompute it and refuse anything that does not match, and we answer that it must be a canonical form: a representative stable under the ways the answer can be re-expressed. We build three and show each survives a different transport. An optimum survives change of algorithm: one integer reached by exhaustive search below a size wall, by exact tropical variable elimination past that wall (bounded by a graph's width, not by its number of variables), and by the published literature. A quantum code's number of logical qubits survives change of proof: it is the block length minus two matrix ranks certified by a proof kernel, and its distance is either enumerated exactly or witnessed by an exhibited logical operator proven genuine by a rank increase. A certified answer survives change of language: its content hash agrees byte-for-byte across two independent implementations and refuses any value, such as a floating-point number, with no language-independent form. The consequence is operational: a reader re-derives the answer and serves it only if it matches. We place a live 2024 quantum-error-correction result on the classical side of this discipline, certifying the code parameters its own published matrices imply without disputing the demonstration. The through-line is old and exact: truth is invariant under change of notation, and a certificate is that invariant made computable. Published by The Institute for Applied Ontological Mathematics.
The Reader and the Writer One Invariant, Two Faces, and the Geometry of the Gap Driven by Dean Kulik July 2026 Abstract Across a long program of experiments this work converges on a single structure, and the structure has a name in mathematics that we did not go looking for. The claim is this. Every operation we can perform on a structure divides into two kinds. One kind conserves — it rearranges a representation while holding an invariant exactly, it is reversible, it is one-to-one, and it decides nothing. The other kind commits — it merges, it is many-to-one, it cannot be undone, and it is the only kind that can make a difference that stays made. We call the first the reader and the second the writer, and the entire program is an inventory of where each one lives. Three results anchor it. First, the invariant-preserving rotation — the ninety-degree write — is exact: verified to fifty digits, and forced into Lax form the moment conservation is demanded. Second, an object’s apparent structure is a property of the reader’s coordinates, not of the object: the same matrix carries an off-diagonal mass of 2.85 in one basis and 1.8×10⁻¹⁵ in another, with the spectrum unchanged — distance is a fact about where you stand. Third, and newly, the operation that produces something from nothing is provably non-injective: no linear system can create a nonzero mean from a zero-mean signal, and rectification therefore requires a collapse. A stack of linear maps is one linear map; depth exists only because of the collapse. The structure this describes — an object with no intrinsic side, a reader that must choose one locally, and a two-to-one map that forgets the choice — is the structure of an orientation double cover. The Möbius strip, the Klein bottle, Boy’s surface, the rotation group, and the spinor are five instances of one fact, and that fact is our lock. This paper assembles the frame, states what is proven and what is not, and shows why the topology was the right place to arrive. Part I · The Frame 1. One operation Start with the smallest possible claim and refuse to add to it until forced. The operation is: an input is mapped to a location in a structure. That is all. Two familiar objects are its extreme cases and they look nothing alike until you see them this way. A digit-extraction formula of the BBP type maps a position to a value — the nth hexadecimal digit of π without computing the digits before it. The map is one-to-one, reversible, and there is no path: you do not travel to the digit, you address it. A cryptographic hash maps a history to a state — an entire message to one digest. Fix the message and the function is exact and deterministic, a single location mapping to a single location. Across all possible messages the doorway is crowded, but that is a fact about the doorway, not about the transform. What unites them is not injectivity — they differ there — but pathlessness. Neither traverses. Both state a correspondence. Ordinary computation is 2 + 2 = 4: an operation, operands, a sequence, a journey that can be walked backward. These are 2 = 4: this location is that location, and there is no journey to retrace. The distinction that matters is not reversible versus irreversible. It is reached by a path versus given without one. 2. Content is difference A mark that could not have been otherwise carries nothing. Information lives in the gap between what is and what could have been, which means the primitive is not the token but the difference across a gap. Two consequences follow immediately and both are load-bearing. The first: perfect symmetry is the dead state. If nothing distinguishes one state from the next there is no transition to perform, no reason for anything to move. Computation requires distinguishable states, so it requires broken symmetry. We call the asymmetry that drives a flow the lean — a pressure difference stood up into a drive. The second: to have two of anything you need something between them. A gap is not distance; distance is separation with nothing crossing it, while a gap is separation with sides. The minimum separation that has sides is one unit per side, so the minimum gap is two. This is a cardinality, not a constant, and cardinalities cannot be curve-fitted. 3. The two channels This is the distinction that took longest to see and that reorganizes everything once seen. Any symmetric pair can be read two ways, and the two readings are different operations that answer different questions. Value channel Shape channel The operation Mean, midpoint, balance Product, coincidence, overlap On a flip 1 ↔ 0 averages to ½ 1·0 = 0, 0·1 = 0 — the product vanishes Type Bijection (reflection) Non-injective (collapse) What it can do Locate an axis. Pair points across it. Vanish. Merge. Exclude. What it cannot do Forbid anything from sitting off the axis — The value channel is a mirror. A mirror pairs; it never empties. This is why every symmetry argument, in every domain we tried, gave us the axis for free and never gave us the emptiness beside it. The shape channel is a product, and a product is many-to-one: two inputs collapse to one output and you cannot recover which. Every operation that can genuinely exclude, decide, or commit lives in the shape channel, and the whole of what follows is an inventory of that fact. Part II · The Lock 4. The writer: what is conserved Take a finite positive measure and its Jacobi matrix J, whose eigenvalues are the measure’s atoms. Shift below the spectrum and swap the Cholesky factors — the Christoffel–Darboux transform: J′ = R Rᵀ + λI, where J − λI = RᵀR The new matrix has the same eigenvalues. The representation rotates; the invariant does not move. Verified across randomized measures to fifty digits. [PROVEN] This is the turn: a ninety-degree write, and the angle is not decorative. A zero-degree write is no write — the state feeding itself, x = f(x) in zero time, a short. A hundred-eighty-degree write is annihilation — the exact inverse cancels the state, which is the degenerate case where the shift lands on an atom and the rank drops. Ninety degrees is the unique orthogonal write that changes every coordinate while preserving the length. Demand that a flow preserve the invariant and its form is not chosen but forced: it must take Lax form, dJ/dt = [J, B(J)], B antisymmetric by the Lax-pair theorem. The entire freedom of “which flow” collapses to the choice of the antisymmetric generator. [PROVEN] The lean is an asymmetry inside that generator, and it selects among destinations rather than creating motion: varying it sends the same spectrum to different terminal arrangements, in discrete plateaus with threshold switches rather than a continuum. [CONFIRMED] So the writer is what is conserved. It is the invariant. It does not move when the reader changes position, it does not depend on how the reading is scheduled, and — this is the sharp part — it has no side. A conserved quantity is by definition frame-independent, which means it has no preferred orientation to be read from. The writer is prior in exactly one sense: reading presupposes something written, and a rule presupposes nothing. It is the definition; the read is the instance. 5. The reader: what is enacted The reader is the walk. It is constraints strung in a linear path, mixed with differences — an execution, a traversal, a scan. And where the writer has no side, the reader is nothing but its side: its position is its entire content. Two experiments pin this and both came back against the hypothesis we started with, which is why they are trustworthy. We built a controller that steers a flow to command which wall it hits first, producing a sequence of thresholds — a grammar of what can be said in the medium. Ten of twenty-four sentences wrote cleanly, with the spectrum held at 4×10⁻¹⁵ throughout; fourteen were refused, and the refusals had structure. We then asked whether that grammar could be predicted from the shape of the starting matrix. It could not: Spearman −0.048, p = 0.56, no signal at all. [CORRECTED] We then asked whether the grammar was at least a property of the rule — stable across different ways of executing it. Four integrators, five matrices: the spectrum held to 10⁻¹⁴ in every case, and the grammar changed every single time — zero out of five reproducible. The invariant is integrator-independent; the grammar is not. [CONFIRMED] The conclusion is exact and it is the lock. What is conserved is the writer’s. What is enacted is the reader’s. The grammar of what can be said is not sitting in the structure waiting to be found; it is manufactured in the walking, and a different walk makes a different grammar. There was never a pre-existing grammar to read. We make it, in the reading, every time. 6. The signatures This gives a test you can run on any operation, and it is the most portable thing in the paper. Does it lose information, or preserve it? Signature Reader Writer Map type Bijective, one-to-one Non-injective, many-to-one Reversibility Undo is free Undo requires the discarded Effect Rearranges, rotates, mirrors Merges, commits, excludes Decides Nothing Everything that stays decided Exemplar Rotation, reflection, XOR, direct address Modular add (carry discard), |x|, the merge Run it on a hash function and the machine dissects cleanly. The carry-discarding modular addition collapses exactly n:1 — measured at 16:1, 64:1, 256:1 for widths 4, 6, 8, dead uniform — and a small mixing round takes 65,536 inputs to 256 outputs. That is the writer: information genuinely folds away, and the deficit is exact. But the XOR and rotate diffusers in the same function are bijections, verified at every width. They rearrange without erasing. They leave no scar. [PROVEN] So a hash is not “the w
Preprint. Third paper of the contextuality-obstructions program, alongside Paper A (the canonical class of the MASA context stack), Paper B (the obstruction spectrum of Weyl context families), Paper D (the observer-context category) and a synthesis note. The slogan "contextual holonomy encodes quantum contextuality" is attractive and, as usually stated, false. This paper gives it a sharp form. On the context stack of maximal abelian subalgebras the canonical degree-2 class has order exactly n, and its cocycle holonomy along closed context loops detects EXACTLY the all-versus-nothing sector of contextuality for closed-triple Weyl families at even local dimension. Both containments are strict, each by an explicit certificate: at d=3 the class is nontrivial of order 3 while the achievable state-independent AvN value is 0, and KCBS exhibits state-dependent contextuality where the class shadow vanishes. The Wigner-friend loop generated by H and S splits by level: its projective (Pancharatnam) holonomy is +1 while its determinant-section holonomy is exactly -i, so any interpretational claim about "the" holonomy of that loop must state which one it means. ATTRIBUTION. The classification of state-independent values for qudit Weyl families, the even/odd dichotomy and the fixed value d/2, on which the state-independent side of the equivalence rests, is DUE TO Abramsky, Cercelescu and Constantin (FSCD 2024). Attainment at general even d is the Raussendorf-Okay-Zurel-Feldmann construction. This paper uses both and rediscovers neither. A RETRACTION IS CARRIED IN THIS PAPER, NOT BURIED. An earlier draft presented the tier-two facets of the d=4 census on a (1/(2*sqrt2))Z grid with a single coefficient magnitude 3/(2*sqrt2), and read the resulting unit-coefficient bounds 4*sqrt2 and 14*sqrt2/3 as placing Tsirelson's sqrt2 inside the tier-two geometry. The whole presentation was a normalization artifact and is withdrawn (Retraction 1): the stored lift has coefficients in {0,+-1} with integer bounds 6 and 7, every facet functional in the census is rational, and Q(sqrt2) is not among the eighteen canonical arithmetic fields. Certificate: d4_arithmetic_profile.py. WHERE THE EVIDENCE IS THIN, STATED IN THE PAPER. Two sweeps quoted here drew no positive instances at all: the d=4 half of the 2,100-family equivalence test, and the 6,500-trial false-certificate sweep, which draws no contextual family at any of d=2,4,8 and therefore establishes the absence of false certificates only vacuously. Both are disclosed where they appear. Theorem 2 is labelled machine-validated rather than proved: the closed form is established end to end for the deletion families treated, while the general closed-triple d=2 statement in compressed coordinates remains open and is recorded as open in the verification ledger. HARDWARE CAVEAT, STATED UP FRONT. The quoted significances, about 56 sigma for the ray-level Wigner-friend holonomy and 35.4 sigma for the Peres-Mermin witness above the deterministic bound 4, are shot-noise statistical only, computed under the implemented witness model and conditional on compatibility and nondisturbance assumptions. They are not systematics-aware and neither measurement is loophole-free; a roughly 3.5 sigma preparation offset on one strand is itself evidence of unmodelled systematics. We also record that the pinned value S = 4.6125 cannot be recomputed from the stored counts (a naive recomputation gives 4.5662, a gap of about 2.7 standard errors); the archived value 4.558 +- 0.018 is the one an independent reader can reproduce from the deposited data. Read these as consistency checks on real hardware, not as precision measurements or certifications. STATUS AND SCOPE. This is a preprint, not a peer-reviewed article. It was held back from the first publication batch and released only after three adversarial review passes; what each pass found, and how each item was closed, is recorded in verification/INDEX.md rather than quietly fixed. One defect found there is NOT closed and belongs to the companion Paper B, which cites a false-certificate artifact that is not in fact in the repository; it is recorded rather than left for a reader to discover. COMPANIONS. Paper A: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21630431 . Paper B: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21630630 . Paper D: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21630697 . Note: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21630739 . Code archive: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21498498 AI-ASSISTANCE DISCLOSURE. Large-language-model assistants (Anthropic Claude) were used substantially in drafting, in developing the verification scripts, in literature search and in proposing proofs. Every load-bearing claim is machine-verified independently of that assistance by the scripts named in the text, and the author takes full responsibility for the results, including any errors. VERIFICATION CODE. https://github.com/manuflog/contextuality-obstructions
ON THE VERSION NUMBER. "v3" is the version of the NOTE, not of this Zenodo deposit. Versions 1 (February 2026) and 2 were circulated privately and never deposited; v1 contained four errors of substance, which are stated with their repairs in the "What changed" section rather than quietly removed. This is the first Zenodo deposit, so if you see a deposit counter it will not match the document version. The document version is the one that matters for citation. Preprint, version 3 (complete rewrite). This note is the synthesis of the contextuality-obstructions program; the proofs live in the companion papers. The proposal is that the Copenhagen viewpoint, stripped of its rhetoric, is a set of structural statements about one geometric object: the transformation groupoid of measurement contexts (maximal abelian subalgebras) with its canonical U(1) 2-cocycle. In that formulation: local validity, the exact classicality of every single context, is a theorem with an explicit witness; complementarity is the nonvanishing holonomy of the cocycle along closed context loops, which detects exactly the all-versus-nothing sector of contextuality; collapse is pinned by statistics, repeatability and covariance to a one-parameter family per degenerate block whose unique efficient member is the Lueders rule, with a classical twin theorem identifying the same axioms' classical solution as Bayesian conditioning; observer-relativity of facts and the movable cut are theorems of an enlarged observer-context category; and the Frauchiger-Renner argument localizes to an ordinary state-dependent violation, with contextual fraction exactly 1/6, carried by a single CHSH facet, the loop holonomy of the observer switch being provably trivial. ATTRIBUTION. The classification of achievable state-independent values, the even/odd dichotomy and the fixed value d/2, is due to Abramsky, Cercelescu and Constantin (FSCD 2024). It is recast here in certificate language; the priority is theirs and is stated in the text. HARDWARE CAVEAT, STATED UP FRONT. Two signatures were measured on superconducting hardware. The quoted significances, about 56 sigma for the triangle holonomy and 35.4 sigma for the Peres-Mermin witness above the deterministic bound 4, are shot-noise statistical only, computed under the implemented model. They are not systematics-aware, and neither experiment is loophole-free. Read them as consistency checks on real hardware, not as precision measurements. ERRATA. Version 1 of this note contained four errors of substance. Section "What changed" states each of them and its repair. They are recorded rather than quietly removed. STATUS AND SCOPE. This is a preprint, not a peer-reviewed article. Each tenet is either a theorem of the companion papers, a machine-verified certificate in the public suite, or is explicitly labeled a conjecture. The paper offers structural characterizations within its stated axioms; it is not an interpretation-free derivation of Copenhagen and it does not claim to resolve the measurement problem. AI-ASSISTANCE DISCLOSURE. This work was carried out with substantial AI assistance. Every load-bearing claim is machine-verified by scripts that ship with the papers, and the author takes full responsibility for the contents. COMPANIONS. Paper A: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21630431 . Paper B: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21630630 . Paper D: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21630697 . Paper C: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21633744 (posted 2026-07-28, after three adversarial review passes; it carries a labelled retraction of an earlier sqrt(2) reading). VERIFICATION CODE. https://github.com/manuflog/contextuality-obstructions