Reference protocol and observation boundary

{Proposed reference values from Pino2018 (Sec. V and Appendix). The listed rounded post-cooling durations sum to $596.2$ ms. They are not demonstrated capabilities.}

The order is

The three control separations introduced below are proposed settings; their feasibility is not established by the single reference separation.

An attempted run includes its preparation record, its accept/reject flag, sensing failures, and detector bins. A quantum instrument is a countably additive family of completely positive maps whose total map is trace preserving. For a continuous outcome, instrument integrals, rather than individual density elements, are trace nonincreasing.

Let ${\Phi }_{j,h}$ be propagation maps and ${\mathcal{I}}_{4,h}(\mathrm{d}z),{\mathcal{I}}_{7,h}(\mathrm{d}y)$ the finite sensing instruments. The successful record law is schematically

Rejection and failure outcomes complete its mass to one. Later maps may depend on earlier accessible outcomes.

The $h$-dependence of a sensing instrument includes dynamics during its finite interaction time. It is not a choice of different electronics for the two hypotheses. A common terminal detector channel is applied only after completing the hypothesis-dependent sphere–sensor evolution.

For an impulsive diagnostic, a normalized squared-position instrument has Kraus density

In a resolved positive-outcome regime its packet-centre separation is approximately $2\sigma \sqrt{z/\chi }$. Replacing finite split sensing by this impulsive map requires a separate approximation bound.