Question, contribution, and proof boundary

The central question is:

Can an accessible record violate a proved bound for every processor in a declared bounded classical-memory class?

Random access codes provide an established affirmative benchmark: two classical bits encoded in one classical bit have optimal average retrieval probability $3/4$, whereas one qubit attains $1/2+1/(2\sqrt{2})$ AmbainisRAC. These inequalities and the standard qubit encoding are not new discoveries.

The present contribution is an explicit delayed and sequential architecture, complete storage accounting, attempted-run scoring, implementation-error allowances, and statistical exclusion criteria. All positive results needed for this assembly are proved for the objects printed below.

different exclusion questions. We distinguish:

1. exclusion of a wholly classical processor whose complete current-input-dependent retained state has a specified finite cardinality;

2. exclusion of a classical environmental memory when the visible carrier is already quantum.

The first question is answered by the benchmark developed here. The second requires a different multitime null class and witness.

Roy and colleagues study sequential prepare-transform-measure random access codes with an already quantum carrier and constraints on intermediate instruments RoySequential. Their environmental-memory question is not the same as the single-receiver delayed-storage question in this manuscript.

to Cheung's series. Cheung's computational intervention and recurrent-network articles motivate careful separation of implementation, observation, and interpretation CheungModes,CheungOCD. Neither article implements the present random-access experiment or supplies its memory-capacity hypothesis.

Psy01-A treats observation and statistical certificates CheungPsy01A. Psy02-A and Psy02-B distinguish channels, complete records, and mechanism identification CheungPsy02A,CheungPsy02B. Psy03-A separates intervention budgets CheungPsy03A; Psy03-B separates persistent classical memory from a quantum-memory resource CheungPsy03B; Psy03-C distinguishes carrier forgetting from retained structural labels CheungPsy03C; Psy03-D places observability before adaptation claims CheungPsy03D.

These manuscripts are documentary and methodological predecessors, not unexplained premises. No identity between their carriers and the present memory is assumed.

boundary. The manuscript contains analytic proofs and unexecuted verification specifications. It reports no new experimental or numerical result. Compilation, software execution, calibration, machine proof checking, and biological validation remain separate activities.

of exclusion. A finite-sample rejection excludes the conjunction of the declared capacity, access, freshness, and error assumptions at its stated error level. It does not establish those assumptions from the score alone or rule out an unrestricted classical simulator.