Note: description expanded on 2026-10-14 for readability. It adds no new predictions or criteria. The frozen pre-registration is the attached PDF, unchanged since publication. Status: the experiment was run on 2026-10-14, after this record was published. Results, including every pre-registered test, will be reported in a separate record linked here. In plain language Theory says a quantum system never completely forgets where it started, even when its dynamics are chaotic. This leftover memory is called a quantum birthmark (Graf et al., Phys. Rev. X, 2026). Theory also says the birthmark should be larger when the system's rules run the same forwards and backwards in time (time-reversal symmetry) than when that symmetry is broken. This record pre-registers a test of that prediction on IBM's ibm_kingston quantum processor. We built two nearly identical sets of 4-qubit circuits. One set has time-reversal symmetry and the other does not. Both use exactly the same gates, so they experience the same hardware noise. We measure how often each circuit returns to its starting state, compared with the 1-in-16 chance level, and predict that the symmetric set shows about 1.67× more memory than the broken set. All predictions, pass/fail criteria, circuits and analysis code were deposited here before any quantum hardware was used. What is tested, and what is not Tested: whether the return probability stays above the ergodic baseline 1/16 at depths 8–23, and whether that excess is larger for the time-reversal-symmetric class by the ratio exact numerics predict for these fixed instances. Not tested: the withdrawn temporal-memory claims of 10.5281/zenodo.20470129. The birthmark is closed-system coherent memory, which measurement and reset erase, so no outcome here bears on those claims. Not tested: the universal random-matrix value 1.889. At this size (N = 16) the circuit family itself gives about 1.66, so a finite-size difference is expected. Not a quantum-advantage claim: a 16-dimensional system is exactly simulable. This is a hardware-validation experiment. Design Hardware: ibm_kingston, physical qubits 108–109–118–129 as an open chain, selected by a no-QPU calibration audit (included as v6_backend_audit.zip). Circuits: a kicked-Ising Floquet period Kx(a/2) → D(h1) → Kx(b) → D(h2) → Kx(a/2), with D(h) = exp(−iΣhiZi)·exp(−iπ/4 ΣZiZj), at exactly 6 CZ per period. COE (symmetric): h1 = h2. TRSB (broken): h1 = h + d, h2 = h − d. The classes differ only in virtual-Z angles. Instances: 16 seeded COE/TRSB pairs (seed 20261013), run at every depth from 8 to 23 (48–138 CZ). Observable: P(t) = |⟨0000|Ft|0000⟩|². The primary statistic is the readout-mitigated excess ratio R = ECOE / ETRSB, where E is the mean of P(t) − 1/16. A noise fidelity common to both classes cancels in R. Controls: 32 deep circuits (depths 60–63) as a decoherence-floor check. 8 state-preparation monitors. 16 readout-calibration circuits. Run: one SamplerV2 job of 568 circuits at 256 shots each, with dynamical decoupling and twirling off and the execution order shuffled. Predictions Quantity COE TRSB R Excess over 1/16, depths 8–23 (noiseless, primary) 0.0896 0.0537 1.667 Same instances, infinite-time limit 0.0952 0.0634 1.502 Circuit family, 10,000 random draws — — 1.661 Random-matrix reference, N = 16 — — 1.889 Under four simulated noise models (nominal, pessimistic, and each with coherent errors), the mitigated R stays between 1.64 and 1.77. The shot-noise standard deviation of R at 256 shots is 0.070–0.125. Pre-registered decision criteria Test Pass condition H1 (primary): symmetry dependence 99% CI lower bound of R > 1.0 H2 (primary): quantitative agreement 99% CI of R intersects 1.54–1.87 and is at most 1.0 wide S1: birthmark above decohered floor Window excess minus depth 60–63 excess, 99% CI lower bound > 0, for both classes S2: matched fidelity between classes 0.85 ≤ FCOE/FTRSB ≤ 1.15 S3: instance-level agreement Pearson r ≥ 0.80 against exact predictions S4 (flag only): state prep and drift Monitors ≥ 0.95, drift ≤ 0.045 Overall verdict: CONFIRMED if H1, H2 and S2 all pass; PARTIAL if H1 passes but H2 or S2 fails; NOT CONFIRMED if H1 fails. Every test is reported whatever the outcome. Uncertainty comes from a 10,000-sample parametric multinomial bootstrap over every circuit's counts, with instances held fixed. Amendment 1 (v1.1.0, made before any data) Amendment 1 changed two things relative to v1.0.0 (10.5281/zenodo.23355804): Shots: reduced from 1024 to 256 per circuit for QPU budget, cutting estimated execution from about 152 s to about 38 s. H2: changed from "point estimate in 1.54–1.87" to the CI rule above, because at 256 shots the point rule would falsely fail 20–25% of the time under the pessimistic models. A CI-width cap of 1.0 keeps H2 informative. Circuits, instances and predictions are unchanged. The trade-off is that H2 is now a weaker test. Provenance Every reported number is derived by script from raw counts: Source and transpiled circuits are saved as QPY. Before submission, every transpiled circuit is mapped back to 4 qubits and its unitary checked against the exact model to < 10−8. The analysis reads its decision bands only from predictions.json and its data only from the raw results file. Submission is gated on the DOI of this record. Files: The PDF is the authoritative pre-registration. predictions.json holds every predicted number and decision band. birthmark_prereg_v1.1.0.zip contains the circuit builder, verification, submission and frozen analysis scripts, plus simulated-data self-tests. v6_backend_audit.zip is the pre-submission calibration audit. Known limitations Small system size (N = 16), so the random-matrix value is not expected. The prediction is specific to depths 8–23 and to these 16 fixed instances. The noise models exclude leakage, TLS fluctuations and crosstalk from outside the chain. T1 relaxation biases P(0000) upward, which pulls R toward 1 (conservative). One backend, one path, one job: no replication. Data: CC BY 4.0. Code: MIT. Principal investigator: Amit Brahmbhatt, Quantum-Clarity LLC.
Note: description expanded on 2026-10-14 for readability. It adds no new predictions or criteria. The frozen pre-registration is the attached PDF, unchanged since publication. Status: the experiment was run on 2026-10-14, after this record was published. Results, including every pre-registered test, will be reported in a separate record linked here. In plain language Theory says a quantum system never completely forgets where it started, even when its dynamics are chaotic. This leftover memory is called a quantum birthmark (Graf et al., Phys. Rev. X, 2026). Theory also says the birthmark should be larger when the system's rules run the same forwards and backwards in time (time-reversal symmetry) than when that symmetry is broken. This record pre-registers a test of that prediction on IBM's ibm_kingston quantum processor. We built two nearly identical sets of 4-qubit circuits. One set has time-reversal symmetry and the other does not. Both use exactly the same gates, so they experience the same hardware noise. We measure how often each circuit returns to its starting state, compared with the 1-in-16 chance level, and predict that the symmetric set shows about 1.67× more memory than the broken set. All predictions, pass/fail criteria, circuits and analysis code were deposited here before any quantum hardware was used. What is tested, and what is not Tested: whether the return probability stays above the ergodic baseline 1/16 at depths 8–23, and whether that excess is larger for the time-reversal-symmetric class by the ratio exact numerics predict for these fixed instances. Not tested: the withdrawn temporal-memory claims of 10.5281/zenodo.20470129. The birthmark is closed-system coherent memory, which measurement and reset erase, so no outcome here bears on those claims. Not tested: the universal random-matrix value 1.889. At this size (N = 16) the circuit family itself gives about 1.66, so a finite-size difference is expected. Not a quantum-advantage claim: a 16-dimensional system is exactly simulable. This is a hardware-validation experiment. Design Hardware: ibm_kingston, physical qubits 108–109–118–129 as an open chain, selected by a no-QPU calibration audit (included as v6_backend_audit.zip). Circuits: a kicked-Ising Floquet period Kx(a/2) → D(h1) → Kx(b) → D(h2) → Kx(a/2), with D(h) = exp(−iΣhiZi)·exp(−iπ/4 ΣZiZj), at exactly 6 CZ per period. COE (symmetric): h1 = h2. TRSB (broken): h1 = h + d, h2 = h − d. The classes differ only in virtual-Z angles. Instances: 16 seeded COE/TRSB pairs (seed 20261013), run at every depth from 8 to 23 (48–138 CZ). Observable: P(t) = |⟨0000|Ft|0000⟩|². The primary statistic is the readout-mitigated excess ratio R = ECOE / ETRSB, where E is the mean of P(t) − 1/16. A noise fidelity common to both classes cancels in R. Controls: 32 deep circuits (depths 60–63) as a decoherence-floor check. 8 state-preparation monitors. 16 readout-calibration circuits. Run: one SamplerV2 job of 568 circuits at 256 shots each, with dynamical decoupling and twirling off and the execution order shuffled. Predictions Quantity COE TRSB R Excess over 1/16, depths 8–23 (noiseless, primary) 0.0896 0.0537 1.667 Same instances, infinite-time limit 0.0952 0.0634 1.502 Circuit family, 10,000 random draws — — 1.661 Random-matrix reference, N = 16 — — 1.889 Under four simulated noise models (nominal, pessimistic, and each with coherent errors), the mitigated R stays between 1.64 and 1.77. The shot-noise standard deviation of R at 256 shots is 0.070–0.125. Pre-registered decision criteria Test Pass condition H1 (primary): symmetry dependence 99% CI lower bound of R > 1.0 H2 (primary): quantitative agreement 99% CI of R intersects 1.54–1.87 and is at most 1.0 wide S1: birthmark above decohered floor Window excess minus depth 60–63 excess, 99% CI lower bound > 0, for both classes S2: matched fidelity between classes 0.85 ≤ FCOE/FTRSB ≤ 1.15 S3: instance-level agreement Pearson r ≥ 0.80 against exact predictions S4 (flag only): state prep and drift Monitors ≥ 0.95, drift ≤ 0.045 Overall verdict: CONFIRMED if H1, H2 and S2 all pass; PARTIAL if H1 passes but H2 or S2 fails; NOT CONFIRMED if H1 fails. Every test is reported whatever the outcome. Uncertainty comes from a 10,000-sample parametric multinomial bootstrap over every circuit's counts, with instances held fixed. Amendment 1 (v1.1.0, made before any data) Amendment 1 changed two things relative to v1.0.0 (10.5281/zenodo.23355804): Shots: reduced from 1024 to 256 per circuit for QPU budget, cutting estimated execution from about 152 s to about 38 s. H2: changed from "point estimate in 1.54–1.87" to the CI rule above, because at 256 shots the point rule would falsely fail 20–25% of the time under the pessimistic models. A CI-width cap of 1.0 keeps H2 informative. Circuits, instances and predictions are unchanged. The trade-off is that H2 is now a weaker test. Provenance Every reported number is derived by script from raw counts: Source and transpiled circuits are saved as QPY. Before submission, every transpiled circuit is mapped back to 4 qubits and its unitary checked against the exact model to < 10−8. The analysis reads its decision bands only from predictions.json and its data only from the raw results file. Submission is gated on the DOI of this record. Files: The PDF is the authoritative pre-registration. predictions.json holds every predicted number and decision band. birthmark_prereg_v1.1.0.zip contains the circuit builder, verification, submission and frozen analysis scripts, plus simulated-data self-tests. v6_backend_audit.zip is the pre-submission calibration audit. Known limitations Small system size (N = 16), so the random-matrix value is not expected. The prediction is specific to depths 8–23 and to these 16 fixed instances. The noise models exclude leakage, TLS fluctuations and crosstalk from outside the chain. T1 relaxation biases P(0000) upward, which pulls R toward 1 (conservative). One backend, one path, one job: no replication. Data: CC BY 4.0. Code: MIT. Principal investigator: Amit Brahmbhatt, Quantum-Clarity LLC.
H. Billah and M.M.H. Sarker contributed equally to this work. Interpreting a fixed quantum circuit's output as evidence of a hardware effect requires ruling out two things usually conflated with it: finite-sample fluctuation, and structure already present in the circuit's own noiseless output. Less commonly checked is a third: whether the reference circuit compared against is the one actually executed, once compiler-level qubit routing is accounted for. We execute a fixed 35-qubit, 243-gate diagnostic circuit on IBM Heron-family hardware (three runs, two backends) and show this third check is essential: the routed circuit submitted to hardware has different noiseless predictions than the logical circuit intended, for several qubits. Against the correct, routed-circuit reference, the aggregate deviation is significant in two of three runs, and four registers (0, 9, 14, 27) show a significant output-probability deviation in every run — though we distinguish a high-confidence subset, {0, 9, 27}, with tightly time-matched calibration, from qubit 14, included only on an exploratory basis given its calibration was retrieved roughly two weeks post-execution. Same-backend replicates correlate more strongly by the Pearson measure, though a rank-based (Spearman) test shows this gap does not survive at the level of register ordering, indicating substantial leverage from a small number of registers rather than a broadly robust pattern; these three executions also share a byte-identical payload and are not independent replications in the strictest sense. The mechanism is only partially resolved: independent single-qubit readout error and raw gate count are ruled out as complete explanations for most of these registers, but the simplest version of the leading hypothesis for the single most-affected register does not reproduce the observed cross-backend pattern even with live, backend-specific timing data. A second, structurally different circuit validated only in simulation calibrates the statistical procedure's behavior under one synthetic noise model; it does not itself establish generality to real hardware, and the specific register set found here should not be expected to generalize beyond this study. Note on scope: this is a methodology and case-study contribution centered on executed-circuit references for fixed-circuit diagnostics, not a characterization of IBM Heron hardware in general or a randomized-benchmarking experiment in the formal sense. Supporting data, the routed OpenQASM circuits, raw measurement counts, and analysis code for this study are available on request from the corresponding author. Affiliation: Sonicium Quantum Lab Ltd., Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Zero-Trust Quantum Benchmarking: Cryptographic Pre-Registration via the OSIRIS Write-Ahead Ledger Author: Devin Phillip Davis Affiliation: OSIRIS Architecture Group Date: September 2026 DOI Reference: 10.5281/zenodo.23045494 Abstract As quantum hardware scales toward practical fault tolerance, the empirical validation of quantum advantage claims faces a systemic replication crisis. Traditional benchmarking methodology relies heavily on post-hoc error mitigation, unverified post-selection, and opaque calibration timing. We present Zero-Trust Quantum Benchmarking, a methodological paradigm and open protocol that eliminates retrospective bias by enforcing immutable, pre-execution cryptographic commitments. Using the OSIRIS Continuous Relativistic State Matrix (CRSM) framework, transpiled quantum circuit manifests and hypothesis thresholds are hashed (SHA-256) into an append-only write-ahead ledger prior to dispatch to physical Quantum Processing Units (QPUs). We validate this protocol through empirical execution on IBM Quantum's 156-qubit Heron r2 hardware (ibm_marrakesh, Job ID: dau0q3qhcrkc73durtgg). The pre-registered manifest bound a novel bipartite-staggered dynamical decoupling sequence (xy8_stag) targeting residual ZZ-crosstalk. On an 8-qubit chain, the pre-registered trial achieved a mean survival probability P(+)=0.8998 at T=32μs, representing a +30.5% gain over bare idle (P(+)=0.5945) and a +6.5% gain over standard simultaneous dynamical decoupling (P(+)=0.8342), satisfying all pre-registered non-overlapping 95% bootstrap confidence intervals without post-hoc fitting. I. Introduction & The Crisis of Provenance Quantum computing research currently lacks an end-to-end chain of custody for experimental data. Due to environmental noise fluctuation, thermal drift, and cross-talk, QPU performance changes dynamically on time scales ranging from minutes to hours. This instability introduces three major vulnerabilities into published quantum benchmarks: Calibration Arbitrage: Experiments executed across hundreds of QPU calls can selectively showcase runs coinciding with transient calibration peaks while silently discarding noisy trials. Post-Hoc Hypothesis Modification: Error mitigation models and threshold parameters are frequently tuned after observing raw state-vector outputs, confusing exploratory curve fitting with confirmatory validation. Data Loss & Black-Box Execution: Published results rarely preserve transpiled machine-level pulse schedules alongside raw hardware counts and system calibration logs, rendering independent third-party replication practically impossible. To establish verifiable quantum advantage, the field requires a shift to Zero-Trust Quantum Benchmarking, wherein hardware execution permissions are contingent upon prior, tamper-evident pre-registration of experimental intent. II. The OSIRIS Write-Ahead Ledger Protocol The OSIRIS framework enforces experimental integrity via a write-ahead append-only ledger architecture integrated directly into the CI/CD pipeline and QPU submission harness. ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ OSIRIS PRE-REGISTRATION PIPELINE │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │ 1. Circuit Synthesis ▼ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Transpile Target Topology & Gate Schedule │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │ 2. Manifest Hashing ▼ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Hash (Transpiled Circuit + Hypotheses + Metrics) -> SHA-256 │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │ 3. Ledger Write Ahead ▼ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Append Hash to Write-Ahead Ledger (ledger.jsonl) & Update Head │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │ 4. QPU Job Submission ▼ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Dispatch to Hardware (IBM Heron r2: ibm_marrakesh) │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │ 5. Verification & Audit ▼ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Bind Raw QPU Counts to Ledger Entry and Publish Artifact Package │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ A. Manifest Schema A Pre-registration Manifest (M) is defined as an immutable JSON document containing: Circuit State: Unrolled OpenQASM 3.0 / Qiskit compiled instructions, physical qubit mappings, and pulse duration definitions. Target Environment: Target backend identifier, scheduled execution window, and expected calibration parameters. Pre-declared Hypotheses: Exact quantitative thresholds (e.g., minimum target fidelity gain ΔFtarget) and statistical evaluation functions (e.g., 95% bootstrap CI parameters). The manifest vector is serialized into a canonical UTF-8 byte stream and hashed using SHA-256: HM=SHA-256(Canonicalize(M)) B. Append-Only Ledger Chaining Each entry i in the OSIRIS ledger (Li) contains the hash of the current manifest HM,i, a UTC timestamp ti, the state of the preceding block head HL,i−1, and execution metadata: HL,i=SHA-256(HL,i−1∥HM,i∥ti) This cryptographic chaining guarantees that modifying, deleting, or reordering any pre-registration attempt breaks the ledger head hash HL,head, preventing silent trial deletion. III. Structural Comparison FeatureTraditional Quantum BenchmarkingOSIRIS Zero-Trust Benchmarking Execution TriggerAd-hoc script / manual notebook executionAutomated, deterministic CI/CD pipeline lock Circuit CommitmentMalleable, often post-processedImmutable pre-registered SHA-256 manifest hash Noisy Trial PolicyDiscarded or filtered unrecordedAppended permanently to immutable audit trail Verification BasisTrust in institutional reputationCryptographic verification (HM↔JobID↔Counts) Fitting IntegrityPost-hoc curve fitting allowedPre-declared quantitative pass/fail thresholds IV. Empirical Hardware Validation: IBM Heron r2 (ibm_marrakesh) To validate the Zero-Trust protocol under production conditions, we pre-registered and executed a quantum control experiment on IBM Quantum's 156-qubit Heron r2 processor (ibm_marrakesh). A. Experimental Setup & Cryptographic Provenance Job ID: dau0q3qhcrkc73durtgg Target Backend: ibm_marrakesh (Heron r2, 156 Qubits) Execution Date: 2026-09-29 19:10:20 UTC QPU Execution Duration: 5.0 seconds Calibration Hash: 63f10bd484207c5044237b4115a46a0d29856036c923a2cde165baed57d15c9c Pre-registration Manifest SHA-256: 2d4c19a4a53301a1ac42459acd8b5b0d8cba0d588fa2523ed0994e5e1612d2f9 Ledger Head Hash: 6d7fd1390c1bab25b52f3e5e07be893aaa7194d8e3bd81db8466085da6e38d37 B. Dynamical Decoupling Physics: Bipartite Staggering Static and residual dynamic ZZ-crosstalk on heavy-hex hardware topologies remains a primary source of decoherence during multi-qubit idle periods. Standard textbook dynamical decoupling applies simultaneous π-pulses (e.g., CPMG, XY4) across all active qubits. However, simultaneous pulse execution on neighboring qubits induces pulse-collision errors and driven cross-resonance noise. OSIRIS introduces Bipartite-Staggered Dynamical Decoupling (xy4x2_stag, xy8_stag). The 8-qubit linear chain [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8] is partitioned into two disjoint sublattices: SA={1,3,5,7},SB={2,4,6,8}π-pulse schedules are temporal phase-shifted between SA and SB, ensuring that no two adjacent qubits undergo simultaneous rotations, canceling crosstalk while preserving coherence. Sublattice A (Q1, Q3, Q5, Q7): ──[ X ]──────────────[ Y ]──────────────[ X ]── Sublattice B (Q2, Q4, Q6, Q8): ──────────[ X ]──────────────[ Y ]────────────── τ_stag τ_stag τ_stag τ_stag C. Empirical Results The experimental trial evaluated coherence retention across four conditions at time delays T=16.0μs and T=32.0μs. Effective loss rate Γ was derived using Γ=−T1lnP(+). Hardware Execution Summary Table ConditionT (µs)Mean Survival P(+)95% Bootstrap CIEffective Loss Rate Γ (µs⁻¹) none (Idle)16.00.6382[0.6313, 0.6450]0.0280 none (Idle)32.00.5945[0.5942, 0.5947]0.0162 cpmg816.00.9139[0.9075, 0.9204]0.0056 cpmg832.00.8344[0.8289, 0.8398]0.0056 xy4x2 (Simultaneous)16.00.9135[0.9097, 0.9172]0.0056 xy4x2 (Simultaneous)32.00.8342[0.8291, 0.8394]0.0056 xy4x2_stag (OSIRIS)16.00.9313[0.9307, 0.9319]0.0044 xy4x2_stag (OSIRIS)32.00.8997[0.8945, 0.9048]0.0033 xy8_stag (OSIRIS)16.00.9318[0.9309, 0.9326]0.0044 xy8_stag (OSIRIS)32.00.8998[0.8982, 0.9014]0.0033 SURVIVAL PROBABILITY AT T = 32 µs 1.00 ┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ █████████ █████████ │ 0.80 │ █████████ █████████ ██ xy4x2 │ │ xy8 │ │ │ │ cpmg8 │ │ xy4x2 │ │ _stag │ │ _stag │ │ 0.60 │ █
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
Proposal to the BlueQubit Quantum Flywheel open call (2026). Track 2 (breaking quantum advantage claims) with a Track-1 hardware component and a Track-3-adjacent seed. Aim 1 — execute the author's own hash-verified K₈ τ-sweep pre-registration (10.5281/zenodo.17918774, never run as written) exactly as specified on three IBM Heron backends under one pre-declared backend amendment; publish the outcome either way. Aim 2 — adversarial classical re-analysis of the author's 156-qubit / 10⁶-shot and 1,430-circuit "entropy suppression" datasets (10.5281/zenodo.19656600, 10.5281/zenodo.19505907) with coverage-adjusted estimators and tensor-network reproduction. Aim 3 — pre-registered hardware test of whether an auditable rule-evolving controller (organism_sim / bridge, 10.5281/zenodo.22862567) helps evolutionary dynamical-decoupling search under real calibration drift; four arms, binding criterion stated in PREREGISTRATION.md before any job. Includes PREREGISTRATION.md (binding criteria committed before submission of any hardware job), prepared form answers, and the supporting audits of the author's 60 prior records (HONEST_ASSESSMENT, FLYWHEEL_ASSESSMENT, PUBLICATIONS index). The archive is git archive of tag v1.0.0.
Quantum processors are now used as feature generators for classical models on tabular data. A circuit encodes each record, the device returns expectation values, and a classical model learns from them. A recent report claimed large gains from such features, gains that appeared only on noisy hardware. These claims are hard to check, because a quantum device is not a static function. Its state changes from job to job and from one calibration to the next, and that drift can leak information about the outcome into the features. We propose a five-step protocol for testing claims of this kind. It runs a circuit that carries no data in the same jobs as the real one. It checks whether the hardware leaves a recognizable mark on each job. It compares random and natural assignments of records to jobs, replays the null results under other submission orders, and closes the leak with a job-purged backtest. We apply it, pre-registered, to the HSBC and IBM study of fill probabilities in bond trading, which reported a large hardware-only gain. We use a public analog task and run the study's circuit on a 129-qubit chain of an IBM Heron processor. Under controlled assignment the hardware features give no gain over classical features, and the device reproduces the ideal features about as well as shot noise allows. Yet every job carries a distinct fingerprint. A circuit with no data at all predicts fills well above chance when records are batched by outcome and the same job sits on both sides of the train/test split. Removing that overlap removes the effect. The protocol costs under an hour of processor time and is designed for any hardware feature or kernel pipeline on tabular data.
The Frozen Token Reaches Quantum: a complete, pre-registered map of a deterministic single-token encoder's monitoring laws on a real quantum processor — fingerprint, privacy, integrity, qubit health, drift, and a molecular-state twin Randolph James Ferlic, M.D. and Kimberly Kate Ferlic — Fieldstone Analytics, LLC, Austin, TX, USA Preprint · Zenodo DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.23670079 · CC-BY 4.0 · Community: spiral-domain-encoder-campaign · This record characterizes previously filed and published methods applied to a new signal source (a quantum processor's measurement outputs) and discloses no new patentable subject matter; the one candidate new application (client-side quantum-job attestation) was deliberately not pursued as intellectual property — see the notice below. Abstract A frozen, deterministic single-token encoder reduces a window of inputs, by a fixed computation, to one 8-bit token and a bounded ≤256-cell lookup, with the nearest-centroid distance serving as a label-free novelty score. A prior program established, across many classical sensing modalities, a predictive theory of this encoder — a competence-zone separability law, a per-entity self-twin law, a compose-versus-recommission law, a cost-not-accuracy law, a deployment-sizing law, a privacy-inversion bound, a safety-interlock characterization, and a geometry-gated drift-adaptation capability. This record asks whether those laws extend to a new kind of entity: a real cloud quantum processor, probed only through the data a present-day gate-model machine returns — measurement counts (single-shot in-phase/quadrature readout is no longer exposed). Established by a pre-registration with frozen falsifiable bands and a simulate-then-validate-on-hardware discipline, the answer is that the monitoring laws reach a quantum processor essentially in full, from counts alone, with no new algorithm. A frozen 1-byte token fingerprints which of three IBM Heron-r2 156-qubit backends ran a job (balanced accuracy 1.00; chance 0.333), proves the signature stable rather than shot-noise (same-device test-retest 0.65 ≪ 1.00), exposes a privacy-inversion (device re-identification 1.00 under an abstracted backend), acts as a result-integrity dead-switch (wrong-device 1.00; gross tamper ≥1σ 0.98–1.00, including a real circuit-level tamper at 1.00 with the novelty spiking ~95× and no cheap null-space evasion; honest subtle-tamper blind spot 0.51), recovers a device's qubit-level calibration ranking from a four-second probe (Spearman 0.88; eight of ten worst qubits; generalizing to a second device at 0.86), and builds a molecular-state twin (H₂ on real hardware: bond-distortion Spearman 1.00; energy ordering 0.771; distortion-twin robust across a finer 12-geometry ladder and two Heron devices, 0.96–0.99). The keystone laws transfer: the separability screen forecasts reach when matched to the monitor's geometry (matched 1.00; generic 0.69, a characterized blind spot); cost-not-accuracy holds (byte = 200-tree forest, Δ0.00); sizing holds (≈4 commissioning sub-batches for fingerprinting, ≈8 for integrity); compose-versus-recommission holds exactly and closes a clean division of labor with the drift law. A hybrid classical→quantum→LLM pipeline monitor localizes which stage faulted at 100% for three bytes. Temporal drift (QF-2) is positive and tracks the device's calibration state rather than the clock — over seven snapshots across nine days the token's label-free novelty tracks IBM's own reported readout error at Spearman +0.89, more tightly than elapsed time (+0.68), because the device recalibrates ~daily so calibration drift is recal-cyclic (the novelty climbs and then falls back as the device is recalibrated, and the token follows it up and back down) and it tracks readout-layer drift specifically, not gate drift (+0.64), C10 reaching the quantum service-life axis, honestly scoped as a bounded n=7 result. Honest negatives are reported with equal weight (no untrained quantum-feature-map advantage, no label-derivative "synergy," no cheap two-qubit-gate-error readout). The transferable lesson: the cheapest possible deterministic monitor — one frozen byte — reaches the most advanced computing hardware we have, as a fingerprint, a privacy probe, an integrity dead-switch, and a health and drift gauge, from the measurement counts the machine already returns, without a new algorithm or a gradient. Highlights · The monitoring laws reach a real quantum processor from measurement counts alone — no new algorithm. A frozen 1-byte token fingerprints which of three IBM Heron-r2 backends ran a job (1.00; chance 0.333) and the test-retest control (same device 0.65 ≪ cross-device 1.00) proves it is a stable device signature, not shot noise. · A privacy inversion on cloud quantum. An "anonymized" backend is re-identifiable from job counts (QF-4, re-identification 1.00) — extending the program's confidentiality-is-not-anonymity bound to a quantum processor; dual-use (user-side audit / provider side-channel). · A result-integrity dead-switch with a declared blind spot. From counts, label-free: trips on a wrong/substituted device (1.00) and on gross result tampering (≥1σ, 0.98–1.00, clean dose-response) — including a real circuit-level tamper (an X-flip of half the register before measurement) at 1.00 with the novelty spiking ~95×, with no cheap null-space evasion (an adaptive quiet-direction override is caught immediately, 1.00) and no false trip on a genuine same-device re-run (0.50) — and honestly fails on subtle device-consistent (on-manifold) tampering (0.51) — defense-in-depth, not a cryptographic verifier. · Qubit-level health from a four-second probe. The token recovers the vendor's own readout-error calibration ranking (Spearman 0.88, 156 qubits) and flags eight of its ten worst qubits — a cheap, fresh, label-free health map that generalizes to a second Heron device (Spearman 0.86 at matched shots). · A molecular-state digital twin on real hardware. Commissioned on H₂'s equilibrium geometry, the token's label-free novelty tracks bond distortion (Spearman 1.00) and preserves the dissociation-energy ordering (0.771), on the device's noisy prepared state — the filed self-twin on a quantum-chemistry target; the distortion-twin is robust across a finer 12-geometry ladder and two Heron devices (0.96–0.99), its finer energy recovery shot-limited rather than device-limited. · The keystone laws transfer. The separability screen forecasts monitor reach iff matched to the monitor's geometry (matched 1.00; a generic two-class screen 0.69, blind to additive tamper); cost-not-accuracy holds (byte equals a 200-tree forest, Δ0.00); sizing holds (≈4/≈8 commissioning sub-batches); and compose-versus-recommission holds exactly — a device-A monitor flags a healthy device B at 100% and must be recommissioned, closing a clean division of labor with the drift law (small within-device drift is the drift law's regime; large cross-device shift is recommission's). · A three-byte hybrid-pipeline monitor. An array of 1-byte self-twins localizes which stage of a classical→quantum→LLM pipeline faulted at 100%, provided each stage is probed with the matched geometry (workload self-twin for covariate faults; a fixed reference probe for the quantum stage). · Honest negatives, and no new intellectual property. An untrained quantum feature-map carries no classical-data advantage, stacking label-derivative codebooks yields no super-additive "synergy," and a cheap echo probe cannot rank small two-qubit gate errors from counts. Every result is the filed, published self-twin applied to a new signal source; the one candidate new application (client-side quantum-job attestation) was weighed as intellectual property and deliberately not pursued, the chosen protection being this publication. · Trust in a cloud the user cannot see, at near-zero cost. The self-twin triad answers the practical cloud-quantum questions — did my job run on the device I was allocated (QF-1), is the abstracted backend unlinkable (QF-4; no), was my result substituted or grossly corrupted (QF-5), which qubits were healthy at run time (QF-6) — from the measurement histogram the user already receives, with no provider cooperation, trusted server, or extra circuits. The provider-side alternatives (randomized benchmarking, tomography, cryptographic verification) spend many designed circuits, privileged access, or interaction; this is the "read the receipt you already have" layer, and it is defense-in-depth beneath verification, not a replacement for it. · One primitive, more than twenty orders of magnitude. The identical mechanism now monitors a vibrating bearing, an electrocardiogram, a radio emitter, an industrial audio machine, and the measurement readout of a 156-qubit superconducting processor — a single cheap, deterministic, auditable primitive reaching the exotic end of the computing-substrate spectrum, the strongest evidence yet for the program's cost-not-accuracy premise (see the breadth figure). · Temporal drift (QF-2) is positive and vendor-corroborated — the token tracks the device's calibration *state*, not the clock. Over seven snapshots across nine days and six recalibration cycles, the token's label-free novelty tracks IBM's own historical reported readout error at Spearman +0.89 — more tightly than elapsed time (+0.68) — and the two-qubit gate error at only +0.64. Because the device recalibrates ~daily, calibration drift is recal-cyclic (the novelty rises, then is recalibrated back toward baseline), and the token follows the calibration state up and back down: the two late snapshots have low novelty and low reported readout error even though their gate error is the worst of the series. C10 on the quantum service-life axis, honestly bounded at n=7. The transferable lesson A single, auditable, sub-milliwatt monitoring primitive — one frozen deterministic byte — now d