July 2026 · Pre-registered · Four points
Gyawali et al. motivate gauge-sector physics (arXiv:2410.06557). QPC runs a pre-registered architecture instance on the same ICC stack as the Joint Structure Challenge: even, odd, and bridge sectors as three contextures in one IBM Fez job.
Plain English
What QPC delivers
We claim: the superposition-versus-sampling occurrence that motivates disorder-free localization in lattice gauge theory is native to polycontextural architecture. Even / odd / bridge gauge sectors mapped to three contextures in one IBM Fez job, with cross-boundary ICC on raw measurement counts (3/3 pass, gaps 0.349 · 0.243 · 0.131, public job IDs). Sector structure is topology: QPC makes that logical fact executable and auditable on IBM Heron in one pre-registered protocol.
Gyawali et al. (arXiv:2410.06557 · Science 2026) showed in fundamental physics that gauge-sector superposition and incoherent disorder sampling are distinct. MCGS shows that distinction on commercial gate hardware: coupled polycontextural execution produces ICC that separable multi-job and intracontext controls leave at floor. Coupling-borne. Raw counts. Public IDs.
Customer takeaway: QPC encodes sector splits as contextures + transjunctions and proves the architecture signature where buyers can verify it: IBM job IDs, raw counts, pre-registered bar.
| What QPC proves on IBM Fez | How |
|---|---|
| Coherent multi-sector structure vs factorized execution (ICC witness) | Raw counts · 3/3 pass · public job IDs |
| One coupled job vs separable 3-job + intracontext controls (28× · 26× · 8×) | Pre-registered bar · two controls |
| Sector topology as first-class QPC encoding. Fast path to auditable hardware proof. | Same ICC stack as JSC |
Point 1 is ED sanity. Point 4 is analytic motivation. Points 2–3 are the IBM headline. Lane A architecture evidence on named Heron jobs.
This page is Lane A (Topology Certificate). Industry pilots with customer scores live on Heron trilogy (Lane B).
Question: Does coupled polycontextural wiring show up in raw hardware?
Question: What business outcome does polycontextural execution deliver?
IBM Fez result (July 2026): Raw ICC gaps vs 3-job separable control 0.349 · 0.243 · 0.131 (seeds 7, 11, 42) · 3/3 pass. Against the intracontext control, the same coupled results separate 28× · 26× · 8× (coupled ICC ÷ intracontext ICC). Every coupled result clears 3× against both controls. The separation tracks cross-context coupling.
The signal is coupling-borne. The intracontext control runs at its own depth (~127–131) and sits at floor. The separable multi-job control is itself deep and also stays at floor. Cross-context transjunction coupling raises ICC above floor.
Raw counts. Public IDs. Pre-registered bar.
Points 2 and 3 pass on unprocessed IBM Fez output. The inter-context correlation is carried by the polycontextural circuit topology and is auditable from the public job IDs. Primary metric: ICC architecture witness on this instance.
How we report (pre-registered): Primary pass/fail uses raw IBM counts. Same JSC bar: coupled ICC ≥ 0.02, gap ≥ 0.05, ratio ≥ 3× vs each control. Hardware arm = soft-objective QPC circuits with sector-motivated weights. Point 4 (Null B) is an analytic disorder-average argument. Points 2–3 are the IBM headline.
Two independent controls, two ratios. Each coupled result is tested against both a separable multi-job control (Point 2) and an intracontext control (Point 3). These are different baselines, so a given seed has two ratios. Seed 11 separates 18× from the separable control and 26× from the intracontext control; seed 42 shows 10× vs separable and 8× vs intracontext (higher intracontext floor). A pass requires clearing 3× against both.
1D Z₂-inspired patch · gauge-sector superposition over 8 physical states · confinement ξ∞ = 1.29 < bar 2.5.
ED reference. Confinement is the primary ED bar. Hardware headline is Points 2–3.
Three contextures with even / odd / bridge weight priors (motivated by gauge-sector split) · 4096 shots · couple_scale=0.8.
| Seed | Raw ICC gap | Separable ICC | Ratio vs separable control (≥3×) | Coupled job |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | 0.349 | 0.011 | 32× | d93up0fu62ks7395c3k0 |
| 11 | 0.243 | 0.014 | 18× | d93vk1dgc6cc73feg13g |
| 42 | 0.131 | 0.015 | 10× | d93vllvu62ks7395d7og |
Aer pre-check: 3/3 · mean gap 0.458 at couple_scale=0.8.
Pre-registered Aer coupling sweep (before Fez): couple_scale
0.8 → 0.458 · 1.0 → 0.441 · 1.2 → 0.357
(mean ICC gap vs separable, 3/3 pass at each point). IBM ran at sweep-selected best (0.8), locked before hardware.
One job. Coupling budget rewired within each context (matched depth family).
| Seed | Intracontext ICC | Ratio vs intracontext control (≥3×) | Intracontext job |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | 0.013 | 28× | d93up0vu62ks7395c3kg |
| 11 | 0.010 | 26× | d93vk1kql68s73c8tnm0 |
| 42 | 0.019 | 8× | d93vlmfu62ks7395d7pg |
Seed 42 shows the smallest margin (8×), driven by a higher intracontext floor (0.019 vs 0.010–0.013); it still clears the pre-registered 3× bar. Reported explicitly rather than absorbed into a range.
Analytic motivation. Sector probes a(s)=(-1)^s, b(s)=1 ⇒ Covs(a,b) = 0. The connected term Γ in a coherent superposition is inaccessible to incoherent disorder sampling. This formalizes the motivation from Gyawali et al. Points 2–3 test whether QPC’s ICC signature clears on hardware.
| Point | Metric | IBM Fez | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ED confinement ξ∞ | 1.29 < 2.5 | Pass (ED) |
| 2 | Raw ICC gap vs separable | 0.349 · 0.243 · 0.131 | Pass 3/3 |
| 3 | Raw ICC vs intracontext | 28× · 26× · 8× | Pass 3/3 |
| 4 | Null B Covs=0 | Analytic (ED note) | Pass (theory) |
Overall (pre-registered): IBM Points 2–3 3/3 pass raw · Point 1 ED confinement pass · Point 4 analytic pass · bundle results/qpc_mcgs_bundle.json
Same within-quantum discriminator at Heron width: collapsed Null A · Marrakesh replication · 78Q last-try.
Prereg locked: docs/QPC_MCGS_PHASE2_PREREGISTRATION.md ·
Auditor pack: docs/QPC_MCGS_PHASE2_EXPERT_REPLICATION.md
| Track | Question | Backend | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| A1 | Collapsed Null A on hardware | ibm_fez 15Q | ✓ PASS 3/3 Null A · collapsed 0.009 · 0.009 · 0.015 ≪ coupled |
| A2 | Cross-backend replication | ibm_marrakesh 15Q | ✓ PASS 3/3 raw · gaps 0.282 · 0.291 · 0.261 · ratios 18× · 82× · 21× |
| C′ | Uniform RX width step | ibm_fez 78Q | ✓ PASS · gap 0.074 |
North Star: pre-registered, expert-replicable within-quantum discriminator. A1/A2 clear the 15Q bar on two backends. C′ clears 78Q (gap 0.074). Bundle: phase2 · last-try · A2: marrakesh · A1: collapsed
Pre-registration: docs/QPC_MCGS_PREREGISTRATION.md · MCQST outreach draft: docs/QPC_MCGS_MCQST_OUTREACH.md
.venv/bin/python3 vendor_benchmarks/qpc_mcgs/mcgs_icc_runner.py --mode ed .venv/bin/python3 vendor_benchmarks/qpc_mcgs/mcgs_icc_runner.py --mode aer-sweep .venv/bin/python3 vendor_benchmarks/qpc_mcgs/mcgs_icc_runner.py --mode ibm --backend ibm_fez --seeds 7,11,42 .venv/bin/python3 vendor_benchmarks/qpc_mcgs/mcgs_bundle.pyJoint Structure Challenge → ICC methodology → Machine bundle JSON → IBM Fez results JSON → Scripts README →