Residual information is not physically annihilated

The instrument is a map on an observer's accessible interface. A dilation may retain information in its inaccessible complement. For example, the isometry

followed by tracing out $F$ realizes computational record readout. Before the partial trace, joint coherences can be present in $CF$. They are not available as a quantum output of the record-only channel.

Thus the statement

“The quantum names are consumed”

must not be replaced by

“All quantum information has been destroyed everywhere.”

Likewise, an unmeasured spectator may continue to evolve. For example, readout of $B$ on $|00⟩⟨00{|}_B\otimes {\rho }_S$ leaves ${\rho }_S$ unchanged, and a subsequently declared channel on $S$ can act on it. The positive statement is about the absence of measured data names from the output context, not a universal prohibition on residual dynamics.

This correction preserves the record-versus-residual distinction in Landmark I and source En10-A@1 CheungI,CheungRelational. The static-record versus recovery comparison in Oai265-A is a documentary parallel, not a premise of Proposition prop:no-return CheungOai265.