Literary interpretation changes as readers encounter new passages, answer interpretive questions, and revisit earlier material in light of later context. Quantum cognition provides a probability calculus for judgments whose probabilities depend on context and probe order, but the use of Hilbert-space notation alone does not establish nonclassical behavior. This article develops Quantum Semantic Dynamics (QSD) as a constrained quantum-probabilistic model and distinguishes three claim levels: quantum-inspired representation, quantum-probabilistic structure, and intrinsic nonclassicality. The present paper advances only the second. The confirmatory implementation restricts the local semantic state to a two-dimensional space, fixes probe geometry in an independent pilot sample, reconstructs a population-level 2 × 2 density state from three linearly independent binary probe bases, and gives the off-diagonal state components an operational meaning through cross-basis judgments. Contextual evolution is restricted to a one-parameter completely positive trace-preserving contraction toward a preregistered context-target state rather than an arbitrary latent transition. Two probes form the randomized A → B/B → A sequence used for the quantum question-order (QQ) diagnostic; the third is measured in an independent arm for state identification. The paper derives the QQ equality, states its assumptions, and adds an uncertainty-style consistency constraint for the frozen noncommuting probe geometry. QSD is compared with explicitly defined classical comparator classes ranging from a static commutative model to matched sequential latent-state models. Compatibility with QQ or the Hilbert representation is not treated as proof of intrinsic nonclassicality; such a claim would require a separate contextuality analysis against an explicitly defined classical representability criterion. The resulting architecture makes the mathematical status, empirical burden, and rejection conditions of QSD explicit before data collection.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tzonelih Hwang (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: