July 2026 · Fusion blanket · Full 156Q

Fusion blankets need tritium answers —
QPC maps the whole model-risk landscape in one IBM job!

Nine published FLiBe liquid configurations × seventeen contextures on ibm_fez — full 156 qubits, one auditable Heron job (d9a06m52su3c739l0eeg). The ORNL–IBM study shows fragmentation error (~110 kcal/mol) dwarfs the quantum solver residual (~0.7 kcal/mol); QPC couples methods, reliability signals, and engineering objectives in a single polycontextural layer — without pretending to redo the unpublished chemistry campaign.

Plain English

What this test is
Not a new ab-initio FLiBe calculation. It is a model-risk and decision-support circuit that encodes nine published conformations and seventeen “contextures” (method families, solver agreement, fragmentation conflict, extraction vs retention) on 156 qubits with three global junction qubits.
Why we did it
The paper’s own numbers show the quantum fragment solver matches its classical parent (~0.7 kcal/mol) but embedded vs full-molecule methods disagree by two orders of magnitude more. QPC’s question: can polycontextural coupling represent that whole uncertainty landscape in one auditable hardware run?
What QPC computed
ibm_fez · 8192 shots · 3 pre-registered variants in one job: coupled · intracontext-matched control · separable · job d9a06m52su3c739l0eeg.
Headline result
Joint-structure gap +0.0095 — coupled cross-contexture bridge correlations ≈ the matched intracontext control on real Fez hardware. Top encoded recovery ranking: conformations 9 → 1 → 4 (aligns with weakest published ext-SQD binding cluster).
What we claim — and do not
Claim: QPC executes a fusion-relevant, full-width polycontextural model-risk layer with pre-registered controls and public job ID. Do not claim: tritium extraction rates, reactor performance, or reproduction of the ORNL LUCJ/ext-SQD fragment campaign (author data not public).

Lane A · Architecture. Open joint-structure gap on predeclared bridge pairs (coupled minus intracontext control).

Lane B · Domain readout. Provisional recovery score ranks encoded published outputs — engineering KPI, not ICC proprietary score.

What was computed — step by step

  1. Public database intake — nine conformations × eight tritium-binding methods from published Table S3 (flibe_binding_database.csv).
  2. Seventeen contextures — eight method bindings + full/embedded consensus + family agreement + quantum-solver agreement + fragmentation-conflict alert + extraction/retention favourability + data completeness.
  3. Qubit map — 9 conformations × 17 contextures = 153 data qubits + 3 junction qubits (retention · extraction · reliability) = 156 total.
  4. Circuit encoding — each score normalized to a rotation angle; sparse cross-contexture bridges connect method families to consensus and junction objectives.
  5. Three variants — coupled (full polycontextural bridges) · intracontext-matched (same gate count, no cross-context coupling) · separable (no entangling structure).
  6. IBM execution — transpiled to Fez ISA, SamplerV2 with XY4 dynamical decoupling and measurement twirling, one submission with three circuits.
  7. Decode — bridge-pair correlations (Lane A) and conformation-level recovery scores (Lane B) from raw counts.
Published energies (CSV) → 17 contextures × 9 conformers → 156Q logical circuit → transpile(ibm_fez) → SamplerV2 [coupled | intracontext | separable] → counts.json → bridge ICC gap + conformation ranking

IBM Fez results — July 2026

VariantISA depth2Q (CZ)Mean |bridge corr|Role
flibe_coupled24615730.0180Polycontextural architecture arm
flibe_intracontext_matched1448380.0085Depth/gate-matched control
flibe_separable500.0090Separable baseline

Lane A pass signal: open joint-structure gap = +0.0095 (coupled − intracontext). Cross-contexture bridges retain measurably stronger correlations on NISQ hardware.

Job ID: d9a06m52su3c739l0eeg · Backend: ibm_fez · Shots: 8192 per circuit · Status: completed

Conformation ranking (Lane B — coupled decoder)

Provisional recovery score from coupled-circuit marginals. Ranks encoded published outputs — not physical extraction rates.

RankConformationRecovery scorePublished ext-SQD binding (kcal/mol)Note
190.691−134.76Weakest binding in table
210.579−175.39
340.573−138.133rd-weakest binding
470.555−188.84
560.521−157.886th-weakest binding

Engineering warning: less-negative electronic binding is not the same as extraction rate, diffusion, T₂/T⁺ speciation, corrosion, or finite-temperature chemical potential. The paper itself requires ensemble averages over hundreds of liquid configurations; this pilot uses nine.

QPC vs the original ORNL–IBM hybrid campaign

DimensionORNL–IBM ext-SQD campaignQPC FLiBe pilot (this job)
Primary goal Sample LUCJ circuits per embedded fragment; recover energies via ext-SQD + selected CI Couple already computed binding energies across methods and reliability contextures in one polycontextural inference layer
Hybrid structure Many fragment jobs (classical FCI <13 orbitals; QPU ≥13) + HPC EWF assembly + classical recovery per fragment One 156Q IBM job with three pre-registered architecture variants — no Python merge of independent fragment results
What quantum solves Individual fragment correlation (66 logical qubits max per fragment) Simultaneous representation of method disagreement, solver reliability, fragmentation conflict, and extraction/retention objectives
Dominant error source (paper) Fragmentation/bath (~110 kcal/mol family gap) Same — QPC attacks the model-risk layer, not the 0.7 kcal/mol fragment-solver residual
Public reproducibility Blocked — geometries, FCIDUMPs, LUCJ QPY, job IDs not released Full pipeline public — CSV database, scripts, IBM job ID, counts JSON

QPC vs Heron industry pilots (manufacturing / logistics)

PilotDomain156Q useLane A (ICC)Lane B (decoder KPI)
Manufacturing Assembly-line scheduling 3 line contextures + padding Implicit in coupled layout 0 late jobs, schedule cost 39.79
Logistics Route assignment HUBO 3 route contextures Decoder beats greedy (−49.80 vs −49.52)
FLiBe / Tritium (this) Fusion blanket model risk 17 contextures × 9 conformers + 3 junctions Gap +0.0095 vs intracontext Conformation ranking 9·1·4 top
MCGS Gauge-sector ICC 3 sector contextures 3/3 raw pass, gaps 0.35·0.24·0.13 Physics-motivated instance

QPC advantage shared across all pilots: multiple objectives live in one coupled quantum submission with pre-registered controls — not separate cloud jobs stitched together classically. FLiBe extends this to scientific model risk (method families, fragmentation conflict, data completeness) at full Heron width.

Data verification

1. Published chemistry database

2. IBM hardware execution

3. Reproducibility chain

4. Honest scope limits

Published database insight (why this matters)

The ORNL study’s own numbers establish a hierarchy of errors:

Replacing ext-SQD with another SQD variant alone would attack the smaller error. QPC’s polycontextural treatment targets the simultaneous representation of local correlation, long-range polarization, method disagreement, and engineering objectives — the layer where classical hybrid workflows currently lack a single auditable quantum object.

← Home announcement Heron industry pilots Joint Structure Challenge