This paper develops task-relative reader certification within Shadow Theory’s source–readout programme. It asks how many source copies are needed to validate a fixed quantum reader, and when access to its retained measurement records reduces that cost compared with observing only its final correct-or-incorrect decisions. The reader is fixed before validation and must return a sign after each complete experiment. A trusted evaluator knows the preparation label for scoring, while the reader does not. The analysis distinguishes terminal-error observations, records with trusted ancillary information, and readable measurement trajectories governed by a shared physical response model. For terminal-error validation, the paper establishes exact finite-budget tests and sequential likelihood tests, together with nearly matching information-theoretic lower bounds on expected source consumption. An unrestricted-record result shows why additional archived data alone need not improve certification: an advantage requires specified information or response constraints. A separate trusted-seed construction gives an exact information-projection test. The central quantitative comparison concerns a fixed fourteen-copy reader in a trusted shared-visibility family. To certify a maximum label error of one percent, a trajectory-based validator achieves a false-certificate probability of at most one in 1,048,576 and a nominal acceptance probability of at least 95 percent, using no more than 720,160 source copies. Under the same preparation and physical-response promises, every validator restricted to terminal errors and meeting the same acceptance requirement needs more than 1,992,371 source copies in expectation. At the exact nominal device, an uncapped trajectory-based test accepts almost surely with expected consumption below 254,746 copies. A separate robustness analysis extends likelihood-test validity to a quantified class of conditional response deviations. Finite-cap guarantees and expected stopping costs remain explicitly distinguished. The results demonstrate a certified resource advantage from access to retained classical measurement trajectories, rather than merely an improvement over one chosen terminal-error test. Supporting materials provide the fixed reader, exact certificates and reproducibility procedures. All guarantees depend on the stated preparation, response, information-access and deployment-stability assumptions. Certification concerns the nominated reader’s decision error; it does not establish complete quantum-instrument equivalence or identify an underlying source. The analysis uses standard quantum probabilities within Shadow Theory’s research programme.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jeremy Rodgers (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: