IBM v2 raw-count recovery and full disclosure (2026-07-18)¶
Summary¶
The "IBM v2" fair-experiment campaign (2026-03-29, ibm_fez) was originally
committed aggregate-only — fidelity/survival means plus HMAC-blinded run
labels, with no raw counts and no raw job identifiers. Because it could not be
independently checked, it was quarantined (see
Count-Integrity Incident, April 2026).
On 2026-07-18 the nine jobs were re-retrieved read-only from IBM (0 QPU seconds) and published in full. This document records the recovery method, the reproduction result, and the claim boundary.
What is now public¶
data/ibm_hardware_v2_recovered_2026-07-18/:
recovered_raw_counts.json— for each of the nine experiments: the real IBM job identifier, the per-pub raw counts (10 pubs × 8192 shots = 81 920 shots each, 4 measured qubits), and the datedibm_fezcalibration snapshot (last_update 2026-03-29).manifest.json— SHA-256 of the pack.reproduction_analysis.json— the reproducer output.
Full-disclosure policy (owner directive, 2026-07-18): raw counts, real job identifiers, and calibration are public research data. The only value withheld is the IBM API token; the recovery tool runs a fail-closed leak check against it before writing anything.
Method (reproducible)¶
scripts/recover_ibm_v2_raw_counts.pyauthenticates read-only, enumerates theibm_fezjob cluster submitted 2026-03-29 ~12:20 UTC (nine jobs in ~10 s), pulls per-pub raw counts and the dated calibration, pins each job to its experiment by submission order cross-checked against the committed aggregate, and writes the pack.scripts/analyse_ibm_v2_recovered.pyrecomputes each experiment's survival observable from the raw counts (all-zero survival for the ground-state preparationsA_even,C_xy,C_fim,B_M+4; the sector target state forB_M±; the odd-parity subspace forA_odd) and compares to the committed value.
Reproduction result¶
Eight of nine experiments reproduce to |Δmean| < 1×10⁻⁴ directly from the raw
counts. A_odd reproduces to ~3.7 % under the natural odd-parity-subspace
definition — its committed aggregate applied an original readout mitigation whose
exact form is not in the pack; the residual is reported, not fitted away.
| Experiment | Committed mean | Recovered mean | Observable |
|---|---|---|---|
| A_even | 0.9185 | 0.9185 | P(0000) |
| A_odd | 0.8526 | 0.8900 | odd-parity subspace (±3.7 %) |
| C_xy | 0.8484 | 0.8484 | P(0000) |
| C_fim | 0.9158 | 0.9158 | P(0000) |
| B_M+4 | 0.9936 | 0.9936 | P(0000) |
| B_M+2 / M0 / M−2 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | sector target |
| B_M−4 | 0.9595 | 0.9595 | P(1111) |
The committed aggregates are therefore genuine, not fabricated — the April 2026 count-integrity incident concerned a separate large-N frontier automation lane, not these nine jobs.
Claim boundary¶
Reproducing F_FIM = 0.9158 > F_XY = 0.8484 from real hardware counts establishes
only that the observation is genuine. It is not evidence of a
coherence-protection ("DUAL PROTECTION") mechanism: the FIM and XY circuits differ
in depth and structure, so a higher all-zero survival for the FIM circuit is
consistent with a shallower/less-decohering circuit rather than any protection
effect. The coherence-protection hypothesis was tested properly on the promoted
ibm_kingston SCPN/FIM campaign and committed as a negative/falsification
result (digital λ=4 increases leakage / decreases retention;
claim boundary). The "DUAL PROTECTION on
IBM hardware" wording is therefore retired as a claim in
data/retired_claims.json (fim-dual-protection-hardware) while the data stands.