Admissibility frontier · Edition 3

Expanded claim page · assertion 1 of 1

the reachable frontier has a cost shape

Ledger / governanceAuditor

Preserves provenance, status, stopping rules and navigation. checks assumptions, certificates, counterexamples and stopping rules.

Exact assertion

The nearest eleven target families now carry separate existence, preparation, sampling, detection and independent-verification costs. Most proposed records are polynomial after a small carrier has been prepared, but that does not make the whole frontier easy: the two-current many-body calculation remains exponential through its Hilbert-space dimension, unrestricted logical tomography remains exponential in logical-qubit count, matched-film yield is empirical, continuum and bootstrap convergence remain unbounded, and the exact quotient-scar result is constant-size rather than a scaling theorem. This changes where to look. Sparse system identification, restricted witnesses, differential measurements and common-sample estimators are genuine theoretical-engineering opportunities; hidden Hilbert dimension, unrestricted tomography and unproved limit convergence are stop signs. Complexity is not promoted to a new fundamental law here. It is part of the practical admissibility boundary because a mathematically allowed distinction does not become physical evidence until it can be prepared, retained and independently checked.

What this commits us to

The claim organizes provenance, scope or stopping rules. It governs how evidence is read rather than adding independent physical evidence.

Logical anatomy

Scope

Chapter “The admissibility frontier”, section “the reachable frontier has a cost shape”. This is assertion 1 of 1 in that section.

Evidence posture

Use this passage to inspect provenance, scope and stopping rules rather than as independent physical evidence.

Research move

checks assumptions, certificates, counterexamples and stopping rules.

Verification route

  1. Recover the declared objects and assumptions from the controlling documents.
  2. Check the calculation, construction, obstruction or stopping rule on those same objects.
  3. Compare the source conclusion with the exact assertion above; do not strengthen its verbs or enlarge its domain.
  4. Apply the status rule and retain every named external dependency.

What would move or defeat this claim

Find a provenance mismatch, stale status, broken link or stronger source that changes the ledger entry.

Source map

Controlling documents