Enter and the interpretation of the theorem

Cheung's operational formulation treats runtime quantum names as access rights and destructive computational-basis Enter as a consuming operation. The operational characterization of its Born law is stated within a specified strategy class CheungEnter,CheungI. Here Born semantics are assumed; that characterization is not re-proved.

The introductory essay The Philosophy of Enter separates readout from quantum recovery, records from quantum-return decoders, channels from thermal machines, and analogs from physical identifications CheungPhilosophy. These distinctions provide the methodological background, not additional theorem hypotheses.

In this manuscript those distinctions acquire precise forms:

1. An instrument is a linear, complete collection of subnormalized CP branches. Normalizing a selected successful branch does not construct a deterministic acquisition channel.

2. Consumption concerns the measured quantum names and their output interface. It does not assert that every inaccessible physical degree of freedom ceases to exist.

3. A source parameter is acquired from unknown inputs, not from a classical token already containing its numerical value.

4. Calibration and competing explanations constrain what a record identifies. More shots do not distinguish identical record laws.

5. A physical correspondence must identify the source observable and acquisition channel; philosophical vocabulary cannot supply that correspondence.