Example · quantum contextuality
A strong experiment — but not yet a fully closed exclusion claim
This case shows how an experiment can succeed while a stronger exclusion statement drawn from it still leaves one material condition unresolved.
The measurements counted against noncontextual explanations, but the full exclusion claim also required disturbance control across the relevant range. That support was not yet complete in 2009 — and its completion had not been shown impossible. The result is therefore OPEN.
The six questions
What claim was tested?
The original wording is kept in English for auditability.
Kirchmair et al. (2009): experimental noncontextual-explanation claim, including the disturbance/imperfection qualifier.
What evidence state applied?
23 July 2009. Only the published evidence and disturbance-certification practice available at that date count. Later methods are not projected backwards.
What was the result?
OPEN. One point relevant to the full exclusion claim remained unresolved.
Why?
Showing the measured violations was not enough for the full-strength exclusion statement. Possible measurement disturbance also had to be controlled across the relevant range. The available certification did not yet cover that full range, while no independent result showed that completing the certification was impossible.
What does this not mean?
It does not mean that the experiment failed, that contextuality is false, or that noncontextual models succeed. It means only that the full exclusion claim was not yet closed at the strength of its disturbance qualifier on the 2009 record.
What would trigger a new test?
A materially available disturbance-aware certification with sufficient reach, a valid analytical transfer, or a narrower reformulation of the claim. That would create a new test, not rewrite the 2009 result.
Show technical details
Run ID: RO2
P2 route: L3→L2 attribution/exclusion
Localization: A5 / bridge-scope; coverage established, closure obstruction not certified.
Evidence date: 23 July 2009