A quantum measurement correlates a system with an apparatus and its environment. For an ideal two-outcome interaction, linear evolution gives
Decoherence explains why interference between distinguishable pointer records becomes locally inaccessible. By itself, it does not select one term of the global superposition as the uniquely realized outcome [1]. The question therefore reaches beyond suppression of interference: why does an individual observation yield a definite record, and why do repeated outcomes follow the Born rule?
Consider the complete experimental arrangement: preparation, measurement setting, system–apparatus coupling, environmental channels, and possible readouts. Let c denote a candidate configuration of those relations at finite resolution. Its admissibility depends on the whole arrangement, including phase-sensitive quantum compatibility and the consistency of records referring to the same event.
Write 𝒞adm for the compatible configuration space and 𝒞i for its sector associated with a possible record of outcome i. Several sectors may remain admissible. Their existence does not imply that one has already become actual, nor does a list of sectors replace the amplitudes and relative phases of the quantum state.
The exploratory CJM hypothesis is structural record closure: a definite event may correspond to the physical realization of one mutually consistent record configuration across the system, apparatus, and environment. The temporal sequence of detector responses would then be the observable unfolding of that realized structure. This is a proposed interpretation of actuality, not a consequence of decoherence.
Here atemporal separates the question of structural admissibility from the dynamics by which records propagate. It does not remove laboratory time or assign zero duration to physical interactions. A record is a physical correlation; a human observer is not required to activate the hypothesis.
Choose a finite-dimensional quantum model, finite precision, and explicit tolerances. Boolean variables encode candidate quantum-state parameters and record descriptors. Complex amplitudes and phases are retained through discretized real and imaginary components or equivalent finite quantum compatibility tables. The encoding has six principal constraint families:
For an ideal faithful record channel, a conditional record relation may take the form RF,i → Pi, where the variables describe a candidate fragment record and its corresponding pointer record. This implication does not assert that either record has become actual. Numerical compatibility checks and logical relations form Φ, which is normalized with auxiliary variables to an equisatisfiable 3SAT formula Ψ.
Testing Ψ ∧ Pi asks whether a candidate record sector survives the encoded conditions. Such sectors are conditional record possibilities within the quantum description; they do not replace the unconditioned state by a collapsed state. An assignment describes a candidate model, not a physical collapse. In particular, imposing “exactly one actual outcome” as a clause would assume the very selection that this sketch seeks to explain. Finite precision also makes the result relative to the chosen model and tolerance.
The central proposal goes beyond testing whether an outcome is allowed. It asks whether admissibility, realization, and probability can be connected by a physical principle of structural record closure. Quantum Darwinism already studies how environmental records become redundant and accessible [2]. CJM must explain what additional role, if any, global admissibility plays in the realization of a definite event.
For nonzero α and β in the ideal example, both outcome sectors can be compatible. A binary SAT/UNSAT judgment cannot choose between them. The missing step is therefore not another exclusion clause: it is a proposed physical account of why one admissible record configuration is realized in an individual event.
Such an account must also reproduce outcome frequencies. For an ideal projective measurement, a proposed structural weight WJ would need to satisfy
This equation states a requirement, not a derivation. Counting Boolean models cannot provide that weight: auxiliary variables and changes of encoding can change model counts without changing the experiment. A physical weight must be independent of such representational choices. Assigning Born weights by hand would import the probability rule rather than explain it.
A bold experimental extension asks whether record closure has a physical threshold beyond ordinary reversible entanglement. A candidate control parameter is Rε: the number of disjoint environment fragments from which the pointer value can separately be inferred with error at most ε, for a fixed partition and readout protocol. Redundancy alone is not assumed to cause collapse.
A first test could use a qubit and a controllable ancilla environment. Prepare a coherent superposition, distribute pointer information, and then reverse the complete interaction. An environment-only unitary can redistribute information between locally readable records and collective correlations while leaving the system's reduced density matrix unchanged. This permits comparison of different record architectures with the same local system state.
In ideal unitary quantum mechanics, reversing every interaction restores the initial interference in either architecture. All copies of the outcome record must be included in that reversal [3]. Record readability is measured on separate calibration runs; the interference runs contain no intermediate readout or retained external copy.
Predefine one primary observable, the excess loss of recovered interference visibility relative to an independently calibrated quantum noise model:
The ordinary quantum prediction is zero residual within calibration uncertainty. The stronger closure hypothesis motivates looking for a reproducible positive residual that changes sharply with record architecture or redundancy. Low-redundancy and scrambled-record controls, matched as closely as possible in duration and gate resources, are required. Matching the reduced system state alone is insufficient: the baseline must model the full circuit, inaccessible leakage channels, and independently characterized control errors.
This is a proposed search target, not a quantitative CJM prediction; a closure law must specify its threshold and effect size before a decisive test. A residual could indicate an incomplete noise model or another physical mechanism and would not uniquely identify CJM. Conversely, a null result would constrain this stronger extension in the tested regime. It would not exclude an interpretation that reproduces quantum mechanics exactly.
Sketch No. 004 asks whether geometry is a projection of deeper structural admissibility. No. 008 asks whether a viable biological form occupies a structurally admissible region. No. 012 pushes the question toward the status of a physical fact itself:
The proposed hypothesis is that a signal registered by a detector may indicate that a consistent record structure has been physically realized across the measured system, the apparatus, and the environment. From this perspective, the formation of geometry, the formation of viable biological structures, and the establishment of definite measurement records could each be investigated through structural admissibility. This proposal connects the three fields through a common research question; it does not yet establish a unified theory.
An all-at-once description does not itself evade Bell's theorem or establish a hidden-variable theory [4]. Any CJM realization model must state its assumptions, reproduce contextual quantum correlations, and preserve operational no-signalling. Here global consistency is a hypothesis about physical description, not a mechanism for controllable faster-than-light communication.
This sketch does not solve the quantum measurement problem, derive the Born rule, demonstrate physical collapse, or establish that measurement is a Changbal Jump. Structural record closure is a proposed principle whose mathematical realization law remains unspecified.
The 3SAT interface describes compatibility in a finite model. It neither chooses a physical outcome nor makes quantum amplitudes classical truth values. Discretization, quantum-state representation, and compatibility evaluation may be costly; no efficient simulation or physical advantage follows from normalization alone.
If CJM retains all standard quantum predictions, the proposal remains a structural interpretation. If it predicts irreducible failure of coherent reversal, it becomes a modified physical theory requiring an explicit law and experimental support. The purpose of this sketch is to expose that fork clearly while asking a more radical question: whether a definite event can be understood as the physical realization of an admissible record structure.