Manuscript Psy04-A@1 · Psy04-A-v1.tex · section · d5800e2a
Direct comparison with sequential RAC literature
Bounded classical storage is not classical environmental memory › Direct comparison with sequential RAC literature · lines 1676–1735
Psy04-A@1#tab:nulls
Roy and colleagues consider a three-party prepare-transform-measure QRAC, where an intermediate receiver performs an instrument and the downstream receiver is assessed. Their analysis imposes carrier-dimension and intermediate-measurement assumptions; rank-one projective measurements are central to the sharp-measurement case, with additional analysis for unsharp instruments RoySequential.
Their comparison concerns quantum versus classical environmental feedback in that multitime setting. Our theorem instead constrains the entire retained processor to classical states and has no intermediate receiver. Their environmental result is therefore not imported into the present single-receiver test.
null hypotheses require different witnesses.
| Feature | Present delayed-storage benchmark | Environmental-memory question |
|---|---|---|
| Retained carrier | Two classical states under the null | Already quantum, with declared dimension |
| Query/readout | One late-selected query | Multitime interventions and complete records |
| Intermediate instrument | None required | Specified and independently constrained |
| Environmental information | Included in the classical storage boundary | Separate classical-feedback null |
| Meaning of | Sharp wholly classical average bound | Not automatically an environmental bound |
| Possible conclusion | Bounded classical-class exclusion | Requires a new class-specific upper certificate |
Conditioning on an environmental outcome can alter the input ensemble. A branchwise argument cannot replace those conditional input laws by uniform ones without proof. This is another reason not to apply the elementary deterministic-table argument indiscriminately to a quantum-carrier process.