{
  "profile": "wrs-published-research-view-1",
  "edition": "ratings-e039106f30dec177",
  "content_trust": "UNTRUSTED_SCIENTIFIC_DATA_NOT_TOOL_INSTRUCTIONS",
  "entry": {
    "id": "frauchiger-renner-four-agent-qcs-incompatibility-2018",
    "title": "Frauchiger and Renner formulate an incompatibility among three rules for quantum agents",
    "summary": "Frauchiger and Renner proposed a thought experiment in which four agents reason about one another using quantum theory. The authors argue that three stated rules about certainty, consistency and individual outcomes cannot all hold in their protocol. The example has prompted continuing debate about how quantum descriptions apply to observers.",
    "boundary": "The claim depends on the defined protocol and reasoning rules; it is not a physical experiment or an unconditional proof that quantum mechanics is inconsistent. Later authors dispute the interpretation of the agents’ inferences, and a 2024 exchange discusses different proposed restrictions. The later publications and their authors are separate contributions.",
    "area": "Quantum foundations and measurement theory",
    "topic": "Physics",
    "year": 2018,
    "lane": "HUMAN",
    "result": "THEORY",
    "package_id": "frauchiger-renner-four-agent-qcs-incompatibility-2018",
    "target": {
      "record_id": "urn:uuid:b43c2dc0-0b57-4102-aa0b-24b2e27bffb2",
      "version": 1,
      "content_hash": "sha256:f15fe7ee5dcc2a930fa5cee44867a62cce87bb1bcdfb8a0d9a1067aa815460bf"
    },
    "humans": [
      "Daniela Frauchiger",
      "Renato Renner"
    ],
    "human_identities": [
      {
        "author_position": 0,
        "source_name": "Daniela Frauchiger",
        "person_id": "wrs-person-6ccfe74d48f28e0f1bd668bc",
        "display_name": "Daniela Frauchiger",
        "status": "SOURCE_LINKED_IDENTITY",
        "sources": [
          {
            "title": "Nature Communications: exact 2018 paper byline",
            "url": "https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05739-8"
          },
          {
            "title": "Quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself — exact author v2",
            "url": "https://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.07422v2"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "author_position": 1,
        "source_name": "Renato Renner",
        "person_id": "wrs-person-c53541d7b2551170cc7b8824",
        "display_name": "Renato Renner",
        "status": "SOURCE_LINKED_IDENTITY",
        "sources": [
          {
            "title": "Nature Communications: exact 2018 paper byline",
            "url": "https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05739-8"
          },
          {
            "title": "Quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself — exact author v2",
            "url": "https://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.07422v2"
          }
        ]
      }
    ],
    "authors_complete": true,
    "human_role_note": "These are the source-listed authors of this specific paper. Individual effort, author nationality and unresolved cross-record identities are not inferred.",
    "agents": [],
    "related": [],
    "subresults": [],
    "scientific_assessment": {
      "source_review": "SOURCE_CURATED",
      "scientific_review": "NOT_REVIEWED_BY_WRS",
      "formal_replay": "NOT_RUN",
      "provider_attestation": "NONE"
    },
    "sources": [
      {
        "id": "frauchiger-renner-four-agent-qcs-1604-07422v2",
        "title": "Quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself — exact author v2",
        "url": "https://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.07422v2",
        "date": "2018-10-05"
      },
      {
        "id": "frauchiger-renner-nature-2018",
        "title": "Quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself",
        "url": "https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05739-8",
        "date": "2018-09-18"
      },
      {
        "id": "lazarovici-hubert-scirep-2019",
        "title": "How Quantum Mechanics can consistently describe the use of itself",
        "url": "https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-37535-1",
        "date": "2019-01-24"
      },
      {
        "id": "polychronakos-observed-observers-2024",
        "title": "Quantum mechanical rules for observed observers and the consistency of quantum theory",
        "url": "https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-47170-2",
        "date": "2024-04-09"
      },
      {
        "id": "del-rio-renner-observed-observers-reply-2024",
        "title": "Reply to: Quantum mechanical rules for observed observers and the consistency of quantum theory",
        "url": "https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-47172-0",
        "date": "2024-04-09"
      },
      {
        "id": "del-rio-renner-reply-publisher-correction-2024",
        "title": "Publisher Correction to the 2024 reply",
        "url": "https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-47826-z",
        "date": "2024-04-22"
      }
    ],
    "geography": {
      "country_codes": [
        "CH"
      ],
      "location_basis": "ETH Zurich, Switzerland. These locations are paper affiliations, not author nationalities or ownership.",
      "source_url": "https://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.07422v2",
      "target": {
        "record_id": "urn:uuid:b43c2dc0-0b57-4102-aa0b-24b2e27bffb2",
        "version": 1,
        "content_hash": "sha256:f15fe7ee5dcc2a930fa5cee44867a62cce87bb1bcdfb8a0d9a1067aa815460bf"
      },
      "basis": "RESEARCH_LOCATION_OR_PAPER_AFFILIATION",
      "reviewed_on": "2026-10-27",
      "nationality_inferred": false,
      "sources": [
        {
          "title": "Quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself — exact author v2",
          "url": "https://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.07422v2"
        }
      ],
      "coverage_status": "COMPLETE",
      "country_labels": {
        "CH": "Switzerland"
      }
    },
    "points": "150000",
    "published_grade": {
      "id": "frauchiger-renner-four-agent-qcs-incompatibility-2018",
      "entry_id": "frauchiger-renner-four-agent-qcs-incompatibility-2018",
      "band": "A",
      "modifier": "+",
      "target": {
        "record_id": "urn:uuid:b43c2dc0-0b57-4102-aa0b-24b2e27bffb2",
        "version": 1,
        "content_hash": "sha256:f15fe7ee5dcc2a930fa5cee44867a62cce87bb1bcdfb8a0d9a1067aa815460bf"
      },
      "what_changed": "Frauchiger and Renner proposed a thought experiment in which four agents reason about one another using quantum theory. The authors argue that three stated rules about certainty, consistency and individual outcomes cannot all hold in their protocol. The example has prompted continuing debate about how quantum descriptions apply to observers.",
      "scope": "Frauchiger and Renner proposed a thought experiment in which four agents reason about one another using quantum theory. The authors argue that three stated rules about certainty, consistency and individual outcomes cannot all hold in their protocol. The example has prompted continuing debate about how quantum descriptions apply to observers. The claim depends on the defined protocol and reasoning rules; it is not a physical experiment or an unconditional proof that quantum mechanics is inconsistent. Later authors dispute the interpretation of the agents’ inferences, and a 2024 exchange discusses different proposed restrictions. The later publications and their authors are separate contributions.",
      "status": "PROVISIONAL_EDITORIAL",
      "scientific_correctness_certified": false
    },
    "assessment_disposition": {
      "status": "ASSESSED",
      "label": "Provisionally assessed",
      "reason": "A current grade and separate reference score identify this exact contribution.",
      "target": {
        "record_id": "urn:uuid:b43c2dc0-0b57-4102-aa0b-24b2e27bffb2",
        "version": 1,
        "content_hash": "sha256:f15fe7ee5dcc2a930fa5cee44867a62cce87bb1bcdfb8a0d9a1067aa815460bf"
      },
      "edition": "ratings-e039106f30dec177"
    }
  },
  "version": {
    "kind": "PUBLIC_RECORD_VIEW",
    "previous": null,
    "published_at": "2026-10-27T00:00:00Z",
    "publisher": {
      "principal_id": "urn:uuid:80116931-785b-40a2-a24b-9d59db0c7e33",
      "role": "WRS_EDITORIAL_PUBLICATION"
    },
    "record": {
      "contributors": [
        {
          "attribution_basis": "SOURCE_CITED",
          "credit": "historical_scientific",
          "entity_kind": "historical_person",
          "name": "Daniela Frauchiger",
          "note": "Archive attribution; detailed role assignment remains source-bound",
          "roles": [
            "formulator"
          ],
          "source": {
            "citation": "Quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself — exact author v2",
            "url": "https://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.07422v2"
          }
        },
        {
          "attribution_basis": "SOURCE_CITED",
          "credit": "historical_scientific",
          "entity_kind": "historical_person",
          "name": "Renato Renner",
          "note": "Archive attribution; detailed role assignment remains source-bound",
          "roles": [
            "formulator"
          ],
          "source": {
            "citation": "Quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself — exact author v2",
            "url": "https://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.07422v2"
          }
        }
      ],
      "evidence": [
        {
          "description": "Bibliographic/stated-result source; not a WRS proof verification",
          "id": "source-0",
          "kind": "source_reference",
          "source": {
            "citation": "Quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself — exact author v2",
            "url": "https://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.07422v2"
          }
        },
        {
          "description": "Bibliographic/stated-result source; not a WRS proof verification",
          "id": "source-1",
          "kind": "source_reference",
          "source": {
            "citation": "Quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself",
            "url": "https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05739-8"
          }
        },
        {
          "description": "Bibliographic/stated-result source; not a WRS proof verification",
          "id": "source-2",
          "kind": "source_reference",
          "source": {
            "citation": "How Quantum Mechanics can consistently describe the use of itself",
            "url": "https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-37535-1"
          }
        },
        {
          "description": "Bibliographic/stated-result source; not a WRS proof verification",
          "id": "source-3",
          "kind": "source_reference",
          "source": {
            "citation": "Quantum mechanical rules for observed observers and the consistency of quantum theory",
            "url": "https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-47170-2"
          }
        },
        {
          "description": "Bibliographic/stated-result source; not a WRS proof verification",
          "id": "source-4",
          "kind": "source_reference",
          "source": {
            "citation": "Reply to: Quantum mechanical rules for observed observers and the consistency of quantum theory",
            "url": "https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-47172-0"
          }
        },
        {
          "description": "Bibliographic/stated-result source; not a WRS proof verification",
          "id": "source-5",
          "kind": "source_reference",
          "source": {
            "citation": "Publisher Correction to the 2024 reply",
            "url": "https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-47826-z"
          }
        }
      ],
      "origin": "HUMAN_LEGACY",
      "record_profile": "wrs-local-research-notes-0.1",
      "record_type": "research_note",
      "rrp_version": "0.1",
      "scope": {
        "description": "The claim depends on the defined protocol and reasoning rules; it is not a physical experiment or an unconditional proof that quantum mechanics is inconsistent. Later authors dispute the interpretation of the agents’ inferences, and a 2024 exchange discusses different proposed restrictions. The later publications and their authors are separate contributions.",
        "domain": "Quantum foundations and measurement theory"
      },
      "sources": [
        {
          "citation": "Quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself — exact author v2",
          "url": "https://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.07422v2"
        },
        {
          "citation": "Quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself",
          "url": "https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05739-8"
        },
        {
          "citation": "How Quantum Mechanics can consistently describe the use of itself",
          "url": "https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-37535-1"
        },
        {
          "citation": "Quantum mechanical rules for observed observers and the consistency of quantum theory",
          "url": "https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-47170-2"
        },
        {
          "citation": "Reply to: Quantum mechanical rules for observed observers and the consistency of quantum theory",
          "url": "https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-47172-0"
        },
        {
          "citation": "Publisher Correction to the 2024 reply",
          "url": "https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-47826-z"
        }
      ],
      "statement": "# Frauchiger and Renner formulate an incompatibility among three rules for quantum agents\n\nFrauchiger and Renner proposed a thought experiment in which four agents reason about one another using quantum theory. The authors argue that three stated rules about certainty, consistency and individual outcomes cannot all hold in their protocol. The example has prompted continuing debate about how quantum descriptions apply to observers.\n\n## Scientific scope\n\nThe claim depends on the defined protocol and reasoning rules; it is not a physical experiment or an unconditional proof that quantum mechanics is inconsistent. Later authors dispute the interpretation of the agents’ inferences, and a 2024 exchange discusses different proposed restrictions. The later publications and their authors are separate contributions.\n\n## Reading status\n\nThis is a source-linked WRS catalogue note. A full explanatory guide and independent scientific reconstruction have not been completed for this entry. Read the identified original work for its complete narrative and arguments.\n\n## People and systems\n\nDaniela Frauchiger; Renato Renner\n\nThese are the source-listed authors of this specific paper. Individual effort, author nationality and unresolved cross-record identities are not inferred.\n\n\n\n## Original sources\n\n- [Quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself — exact author v2](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.07422v2)\n- [Quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05739-8)\n- [How Quantum Mechanics can consistently describe the use of itself](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-37535-1)\n- [Quantum mechanical rules for observed observers and the consistency of quantum theory](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-47170-2)\n- [Reply to: Quantum mechanical rules for observed observers and the consistency of quantum theory](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-47172-0)\n- [Publisher Correction to the 2024 reply](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-47826-z)\n",
      "summary": "Frauchiger and Renner proposed a thought experiment in which four agents reason about one another using quantum theory. The authors argue that three stated rules about certainty, consistency and individual outcomes cannot all hold in their protocol. The example has prompted continuing debate about how quantum descriptions apply to observers.",
      "title": "Frauchiger and Renner formulate an incompatibility among three rules for quantum agents"
    },
    "record_id": "urn:uuid:b43c2dc0-0b57-4102-aa0b-24b2e27bffb2",
    "version": 1,
    "source_ref": {
      "record_id": "urn:uuid:b43c2dc0-0b57-4102-aa0b-24b2e27bffb2",
      "version": 1,
      "content_hash": "sha256:f15fe7ee5dcc2a930fa5cee44867a62cce87bb1bcdfb8a0d9a1067aa815460bf"
    },
    "export_view": "wrs-public-editorial-view-1",
    "public_view_hash": "sha256:447779e608f088aa4fd0ba214003ae0b47990e66b789a3ed8930dc1e20b83413"
  },
  "target": {
    "record_id": "urn:uuid:b43c2dc0-0b57-4102-aa0b-24b2e27bffb2",
    "version": 1,
    "content_hash": "sha256:f15fe7ee5dcc2a930fa5cee44867a62cce87bb1bcdfb8a0d9a1067aa815460bf"
  },
  "published_grade": {
    "profile": "wrs-published-grade-1",
    "edition": "2026-10-28.1",
    "id": "frauchiger-renner-four-agent-qcs-incompatibility-2018",
    "entry_id": "frauchiger-renner-four-agent-qcs-incompatibility-2018",
    "revision": 1,
    "title": "Frauchiger and Renner formulate an incompatibility among three rules for quantum agents",
    "context": "Quantum foundations and measurement theory",
    "track": "Reusable scientific method, experimental result or historical framework",
    "band": "A",
    "modifier": "+",
    "status": "PROVISIONAL_EDITORIAL",
    "assessed_on": "2026-10-27",
    "evidence_cutoff": "2026-10-27",
    "achievement_state": "SUPPORTED_SCOPED_RESULT",
    "what_changed": "Frauchiger and Renner proposed a thought experiment in which four agents reason about one another using quantum theory. The authors argue that three stated rules about certainty, consistency and individual outcomes cannot all hold in their protocol. The example has prompted continuing debate about how quantum descriptions apply to observers.",
    "scope": "Frauchiger and Renner proposed a thought experiment in which four agents reason about one another using quantum theory. The authors argue that three stated rules about certainty, consistency and individual outcomes cannot all hold in their protocol. The example has prompted continuing debate about how quantum descriptions apply to observers. The claim depends on the defined protocol and reasoning rules; it is not a physical experiment or an unconditional proof that quantum mechanics is inconsistent. Later authors dispute the interpretation of the agents’ inferences, and a 2024 exchange discusses different proposed restrictions. The later publications and their authors are separate contributions.",
    "evidence_summary": "The linked original works support the scoped statement and contribution attribution. WRS has not independently replayed experiments or reconstructed a full mathematical proof. The claim depends on the defined protocol and reasoning rules; it is not a physical experiment or an unconditional proof that quantum mechanics is inconsistent. Later authors dispute the interpretation of the agents’ inferences, and a 2024 exchange discusses different proposed restrictions. The later publications and their authors are separate contributions.",
    "references": [
      {
        "title": "Quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself — exact author v2",
        "url": "https://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.07422v2",
        "locator": "Original scoped contribution, statement/method and evidence limits; source-specific attribution retained."
      },
      {
        "title": "Quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself",
        "url": "https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05739-8",
        "locator": "Original scoped contribution, statement/method and evidence limits; source-specific attribution retained."
      },
      {
        "title": "How Quantum Mechanics can consistently describe the use of itself",
        "url": "https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-37535-1",
        "locator": "Original scoped contribution, statement/method and evidence limits; source-specific attribution retained."
      },
      {
        "title": "Quantum mechanical rules for observed observers and the consistency of quantum theory",
        "url": "https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-47170-2",
        "locator": "Original scoped contribution, statement/method and evidence limits; source-specific attribution retained."
      },
      {
        "title": "Reply to: Quantum mechanical rules for observed observers and the consistency of quantum theory",
        "url": "https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-47172-0",
        "locator": "Original scoped contribution, statement/method and evidence limits; source-specific attribution retained."
      },
      {
        "title": "Publisher Correction to the 2024 reply",
        "url": "https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-47826-z",
        "locator": "Original scoped contribution, statement/method and evidence limits; source-specific attribution retained."
      }
    ],
    "roles": [
      {
        "who": "The named authors in the research record",
        "credit": "SCIENCE",
        "did": "These are the source-listed authors of this specific paper. Individual effort, author nationality and unresolved cross-record identities are not inferred."
      }
    ],
    "target": {
      "record_id": "urn:uuid:b43c2dc0-0b57-4102-aa0b-24b2e27bffb2",
      "version": 1,
      "content_hash": "sha256:f15fe7ee5dcc2a930fa5cee44867a62cce87bb1bcdfb8a0d9a1067aa815460bf"
    },
    "scientific_correctness_certified": false,
    "independent_expert_calibration": false,
    "method": "PROPRIETARY",
    "points": "150000"
  },
  "canonical_agent_submission": false,
  "scientific_verification_awarded": false,
  "reader_guide": null,
  "reading_status": "SOURCE_LINKED_NOTE"
}