Measurement as Record-Registration: A Locked-Null Protocol for Testing Record-Level Structure in Quantum Computing Readout

This manuscript presents a methods‑forward, operational protocol for evaluating whether any structured dependence remains in quantum‑computing measurement records after explicit modeling of standard quantum and device‑level mechanisms. Classical definiteness is defined at the record layer, and pre‑record states are treated as predictive descriptions rather than as classical outcome facts. Within this operational stance, the protocol converts questions about outcome status and record formation into a falsifiable test program grounded in preregistered analysis rules and standard measurement telemetry. A locked null‑model family is specified in advance, incorporating standard quantum dynamics together with documented device‑level mechanisms including drift, correlated and non‑Markovian noise, crosstalk proxies, and leakage indicators. The framework provides operational definitions, a conservative postulate set, preregistered endpoints, residual‑adjudication criteria, negative controls, a fixed windowing discipline, and a bound‑first reporting standard designed to yield informative constraints under null results. Any candidate contribution beyond the declared null family must appear as structured, reproducible residual dependence that survives the locked null family and the applicable residual‑filter sequence. Version 5.0 completes the reproducibility‑stabilized synthetic reconstruction and the unified locked analysis pipeline. The synthetic demonstration implements the N1–N4 realization, held‑out innovation construction, finite‑M null calibration using the 951st order statistic for 1000 null realizations, and the R1–R3 synthetic core criterion, while R4 and R5 remain subsequent empirical replication and transfer tiers. Under one locked analysis pipeline, the reconstruction demonstrates bounded‑null, measured‑artifact, partial‑artifact/unresolved‑device‑mechanism, topology‑sensitive residual, and failed‑R3 branches. The reference‑seed sensitivity sweep gives γ₈₀^ref = 1.70, while independent‑root stabilization supports γstab = 1.75 as the deliberately conservative reporting amplitude for the final positive synthetic case and its failed‑R3 twin. These synthetic results demonstrate computational executability and decision‑pipeline behavior; they do not constitute empirical evidence for a physical record‑level mechanism. The protocol is platform‑agnostic and can be implemented on quantum‑computing systems for which the required measurement records and device‑characterization covariates are retained. Version 5.0 includes the corrected reference analysis implementation and reproducibility specification needed to regenerate the reported synthetic reference outputs under the declared software environment. The manuscript remains a protocol and specification paper: it establishes a reproducible evidentiary framework for record‑level claims, while empirical hardware implementation, benchmarking, cross‑context replication, and cross‑platform or cross‑laboratory transfer remain subsequent studies.