Operational Identifiability of Tensor Product Structures: Exact Rigidity Laws, a Two-Operation Threshold, and an Aliasing Limit

Here's what this paper means for actual humans: WHAT THIS IS ABOUT. When you build or use a quantum device, everything rests on knowing what its parts are: which degrees of freedom are "qubit 1," which are "qubit 2." The companion paper ("Forged Frames") showed that simple mathematical criteria cannot certify this; convincing fakes exist. This paper answers the question that result leaves standing: what is the MINIMUM experimental information that genuinely pins down a system's subsystem structure, and when can that information silently fail? WHAT WE FOUND, IN PLAIN TERMS. Four things. (1) EXACT LAWS INSTEAD OF MEASUREMENTS. Any wrong choice of parts must visibly distort the family of unentangled states, and we derive exactly how much, at every system size: closed-form constants (verified to seven decimal places), an explicit error bound, and a surprise. The two natural ways to measure "wrongness" (state distortion versus operator scrambling) turn out to be literally the same measurement, up to a fixed number, whenever the two parts have equal size. Wrongness cannot hide. (2) THE TWO-OPERATION THRESHOLD. You can pin down what your subsystems are by implementing just TWO generic operations and checking their statistics, while a THOUSAND mutually commuting operations tell you nothing at all. Diversity of control, not volume of control, is what fixes what your qubits are. The residual uncertainty is proportional to your measurement tolerance, with a constant we derive exactly and show how to compute in advance, so an experimenter can screen candidate operation pairs and pick a strong one (random pairs are typically several times worse, occasionally catastrophically so). (3) THE ALIASING LIMIT: CERTIFICATION CAN PASS WHILE TELLING YOU NOTHING. If you sample your certification data at special "resonant" times (set by the operations' energy scales), a maximally wrong assignment of subsystems passes the test perfectly. What your qubits are depends on when you looked. We characterize these blind spots exactly (for qubits they are universal and computable in advance; the danger windows shrink with the square root of your tolerance), and the fix costs almost nothing: sample at two different times, at least one away from the resonant set. With that, certification is restored; we prove it exactly and measure it. (4) REAL-LAB BUDGETS. We work out what certification costs in actual measurement shots (the error falls off unusually fast, inversely with the total number of shots rather than with its square root), how hardware noise floors the procedure, and how a simple reference measurement removes that floor to first order. A single seven-row table in the paper is effectively a lab protocol: it shows, condition by condition, which kinds of experimental access identify the subsystem structure (two generic operations: yes; one operation, commuting operations, resonant sampling: no). WHY IT MATTERS. For quantum hardware: this is a concrete recipe for certifying that the qubits you think you have are the qubits you physically have, with explicit tolerances, a sampling-time warning that is a real failure mode on calibrated hardware, and shot budgets. For foundations: the contested question "does physics determine its own subsystems?" gets a quantitative operational answer. Physics determines an operational subsystem CLASS (not one preferred coordinate representation of it), and that class is fixed by two operations sampled at two times, and by nothing less that we tested. WHAT IT OPENS UP. The seven-row identifiability table is a blueprint for a tabletop experiment on any small quantum platform; running it on hardware would move this from simulation to laboratory fact. On the theory side the paper leaves sharply posed open problems: the exact global constants when the two parts differ in size, the number-theoretic structure of long-time sampling (the failure times form a small-divisor hierarchy), and the extension from two parts to many. METHODS NOTE, BECAUSE IT MATTERS FOR TRUST. Every quantitative claim was pre-registered in the companion scripts before its run. The full ledger, including predictions that failed and one published-in-note constant that our own later theory overturned, is an appendix of the paper. All code, data, and working notes are in the deposit, seeded for exact reproduction. WHO AND HOW. A human-AI collaboration: research direction and standards of evidence by Ryan Cardwell (Crystalline Labs); design, code, derivations, and drafting by Claude (Anthropic), including autonomous sessions under the program's pre-registration rules, with adversarial reviews by other AI models incorporated and credited.