Questions answered with sealed evidence.

As of November 8, 2026, 47% of the US-dollar quantum money announced over the past 31 days — $2.83 billion of $5.98 billion, across five headline events logged by Rosetta Quantum — has closed nothing: it is a press-reported acquisition price absent from the buyer's own release (≈$2.3B, Intel–Classiq), a conditional loan commitment (up to $150M), two «up to» ceilings and one non-binding letter of intent ($27M). The $3.15 billion that did close splits into $2.0 billion of cash (IonQ's equity offering, closed October 16) and $1.15 billion of stock (IonQ–Elisity, closed November 4).

As of November 8, 2026, the default key exchange of the post-quantum transition is the hybrid X25519MLKEM768: TLS 1.3 runs classical X25519 and post-quantum ML-KEM-768 inside one handshake — the client sends 1,216 bytes, the server answers with 1,120, and an attacker must break both locks at once (IETF draft-ietf-tls-ecdhe-mlkem-05, 2026-05-26). Chrome (default since April 2024), Firefox 132 (October 2024), OpenSSL 3.5 (April 2025) and ≈70% of human HTTPS traffic on Cloudflare (2026-09-29) already ship it; the public record still shows 0 RSA-2048 keys broken by a quantum computer and 0 breaches attributed to a quantum attack (re-verified 2026-11-08). The spec everyone deploys is still an Internet-Draft, not an RFC.

As of November 7, 2026, the signatures and public keys inside one typical TLS handshake weigh 1,248 bytes with today’s RSA/ECDSA mix, and would weigh 14,724 bytes if every one became ML-DSA-44 — about 12 times more (Cloudflare, PKI Consortium PQC Conference, 2025-01-15). That byte bill, not the lattice math, is what strains fixed budgets like DNSSEC’s 1,232-byte UDP ceiling and kilobyte firmware images. The public record still shows 0 RSA-2048 keys broken by a quantum computer and 0 breaches attributed to a quantum attack, re-verified today.

As of November 7, 2026, recirculation — old quantum results resurfacing as fresh news — remains one of the most common failure modes in quantum coverage. This week alone: a preprint dated June 18, 2026 (arXiv:2606.19239) ran as a November 5 news item, a 140-day gap, and a November 1 digest re-ran IBM’s July 30 advantage claims with new vocabulary and no new measurement. A claim’s date is part of the claim: Rosetta Quantum dates three worked cases and gives a five-step checklist for dating any quantum claim.

As of November 6, 2026, the two most advanced candidates ever broken in NIST's post-quantum process — a signature finalist and a round-4 encryption candidate — fell to classical computers, not quantum ones. Rainbow, one of the three digital-signature finalists, fell on February 25, 2022 to a key-recovery attack that averages 53 hours on a standard laptop (IACR ePrint 2022/214). SIKE, a round-4 KEM candidate, fell on July 30, 2022, just 25 days after NIST advanced it, to an attack built on a theorem published in 1997; the final version of that attack breaks SIKEp434 in about 10 minutes on a single core (IACR ePrint 2022/975). The count of keys broken by quantum computers on the public record was 0 then and is 0 today — Rosetta Quantum re-verified that count this morning. The lesson of 2022 is not panic. It is hybridity and crypto-agility, and it is the strongest argument on record that public cryptanalysis works.

Lattice surgery is the standard way two error-corrected logical qubits interact on a 2D chip: neighboring code patches are merged by measuring a joint logical operator, then split apart — turning protected memory into protected computation. As of November 6, 2026, the strongest demonstration is a logical Bell state between two distance-3 surface-code patches on IBM's 120-qubit ibm_phoenix, with fidelity bounded above 93% — a post-selected bound that kept 40% of shots (University of Sydney, arXiv:2610.32347, 23 Oct 2026). Rosetta Quantum reads the number together with its accounting.

As of November 5, 2026, the headline number is 0.516: IQM reports a GHZ state entangling all 54 qubits of its cloud-accessible Emerald processor, with readout error mitigation — 0.016 above the 0.5 fidelity threshold that certifies genuine multipartite entanglement (IQM press release, 2026-10-29). The margin is real and thin: no error bars and no preprint accompany the figure, while the closest comparable measurement with published uncertainty — IBM's 27-qubit GHZ in 2021 — carried ±0.017, more than IQM's entire margin (arXiv:2101.08946). The largest GHZ state on any hardware remains IBM's 120 qubits at 0.56(3) with 28% post-selection (arXiv:2510.09520). Rosetta Quantum explains what the number certifies — and what it does not.

As of November 5, 2026: crypto-agility — the capacity to swap cryptographic algorithms without breaking operations — matters more than picking the algorithm. In 2022, two late-round candidates in NIST’s own post-quantum process fell to classical laptops: Rainbow in 53 hours, SIKE in about 10 minutes. Quantum computers have broken 0 RSA-2048 keys. The one measured removal precedent, SHA-1, will have taken 13 years from practical collision to its 2030 removal deadline.

As of November 4, 2026, every major government framework for the post-quantum migration published since 2022 puts the same first step in writing: an inventory of where your cryptography lives. Five of five — OMB M-23-02 (2022-11-18), the CISA/NSA/NIST quantum-readiness factsheet (2023-08-21), the UK NCSC migration timelines (2025-03-20, full discovery by 2028), the EU coordinated roadmap (2025-06-23, inventories by 2026-12-31) and OMB M-26-15 (2026-06-24) — ask you to count before you buy. A CBOM — cryptographic bill of materials — is the machine-readable format for that inventory, an open standard since CycloneDX v1.6 (2024-04-09). The pressure behind it is dated mandates and data lifetimes, not attacks: the public record still shows 0 RSA-2048 keys broken by a quantum computer and 0 breaches attributed to a quantum attack, both re-verified 2026-11-04.

As of November 4, 2026: the «error-correction world record by 10×» that Quantinuum announced on October 19, 2026 is a measured logical memory error rate of about 5×10⁻⁶ per cycle — roughly five failures per million cycles — on a distance-7 color code running on 73 trapped-ion qubits of Helios-1 (arXiv:2610.24077), about 9× below Quantinuum’s own September 2026 record (Helix, 4.6×10⁻⁵, arXiv:2609.03194). Rosetta Quantum’s read: the number is real and well documented, and it measures an idling logical memory, not computation — the best measured logical two-qubit gate error is 14× higher, decoding ran offline, and the baseline for «10×» is Quantinuum itself.

As of November 3, 2026, the US Department of War's quantum package of approximately $350 million (announced October 7–9, 2026) buys zero quantum computers: about $200 million is new funding for DARPA's Quantum Benchmarking Initiative Stage C — the government independently testing whether six vendors' machines can be built as designed — and up to $150 million is a conditional loan commitment to PsiQuantum that is still in due diligence. Rosetta Quantum read the line items: the biggest one pays for verification, not qubits.

Two binding dates. As of November 3, 2026, Executive Order 14412 (signed June 22, 2026) requires US federal civilian agencies to move high-value and high-impact systems to post-quantum key establishment by December 31, 2030 and to post-quantum digital signatures by December 31, 2031; contractors will follow via a FAR rule by 2030, while National Security Systems run on NSA’s earlier CNSA 2.0 clock (2027/2030/2031). The first deliverable — agency migration plans under OMB M-26-15 — came due October 22, 2026, and no public tally of filings exists; the measured baseline, GAO-27-108740 (October 2026), found none of the 24 CFO Act agencies had fully addressed GAO’s PQC transition practices. Meanwhile the public count of RSA-2048 keys broken by any quantum computer remains 0.

Zero. As of November 2, 2026, no RSA key of any deployed size has ever been broken by a quantum computer: the public record stands at 0, the genuine hardware record for Shor’s algorithm is the six-bit number 35 — a 2019 run that succeeded in ≈14% of attempts — and both 2026 factoring records (RSA-260 and RSA-896, September 2026) were set by classical GPUs running the general number field sieve. Rosetta Quantum keeps the dated dossier of what has actually been factored, so security teams can cite the real score — and still migrate on the clocks that bind.

TL;DR (valid as of 2 November 2026). The frozen detector (hash 08ad337d, frozen 2026-09-07) stands at 16 hits in 42 prospective cases: 38.1%, 95% Wilson interval 25.0-53.2%, down from 44.4% last week. Of 305 PDB entries released between 2026-10-26 and 2026-11-02, 72 were candidates, 36 unique by accession, and 15 were scorable. Four were hits. None of the four is on an allosteric site: three are a catalytic nucleotide or substrate or an explicitly competitive inhibitor, and the fourth is a crystallisation artefact. Exactly one of the fifteen answer ligands is a verified allosteric modulator (SB225002 in the colchicine and vinblastine regions of tubulin, 24PT) and the detector missed it with matched-null 0.008 and rank 1 invariance at both dilation radii. Nine weeks in, every quantitative reading still contains the retrospective 32.6%.

As of November 2, 2026, the largest disclosed acquisition in quantum computing is a software deal: on October 26, 2026 Intel signed a definitive agreement to buy Classiq, an Israeli quantum software company, for a reported ≈$2.3 billion (Quantum Computing Report; Ynet) — about 2.1× the previous record, IonQ’s $1.075 billion purchase of Oxford Ionics (June 2025), in a market where ≈87% of tracked private capital went to hardware (QED-C 2025). The agreement is signed, not closed: closing is expected in the first half of 2027, pending regulators.

As of November 1, 2026, zero RSA-2048 keys have been broken by any quantum computer and the hardware record for Shor's algorithm remains factoring 35 — but the paper estimate of what a break would take just dropped again: 22,593 cat qubits running 3.14 days (Alice & Bob with Inria, CEA and the University of Edinburgh, IACR ePrint 2026/2665, October 29, 2026), roughly 40× below Google's 2025 figure of about one million transmons (arXiv:2505.15917). The published curve has fallen ≈44,000× since 2012 — entirely on paper: the largest published cat-qubit chip holds 12 qubits. This Rosetta Quantum re-verdict replaces our September 2, 2026 version at the same URL.

As of November 1, 2026, exactly one of the three NIST post-quantum standards finalized on August 13, 2024 runs in your browser: ML-KEM (FIPS 203), the key-exchange half, inside the X25519MLKEM768 hybrid that already covers ≈70% of browser traffic to Cloudflare (reading of 2026-09-29). The signature standards ML-DSA (FIPS 204) and SLH-DSA (FIPS 205) protect zero publicly trusted TLS certificates today, HQC and FIPS 206 have no published standard yet, and the public record still shows 0 RSA-2048 keys broken and 0 breaches attributed to a quantum attack (re-verified 2026-11-01).

As of October 31, 2026: about 70% of browser-generated HTTPS traffic reaching Cloudflare’s network already negotiates hybrid post-quantum key agreement, per Cloudflare’s September 29, 2026 reading — up from 29% at the start of 2025 — while only about 15% of the origins Cloudflare connects to support it. The public record still shows 0 RSA-2048 keys broken by a quantum computer and 0 breaches attributed to a quantum attack.

As of October 31, 2026: attackers moved about $6.36 billion out of Binance across 10 blockchains in roughly 20 minutes on October 29 — the largest theft in crypto history, 4 times the Bybit record of 2025 and more than twice everything stolen in all of 2025. TRM Labs and Chainalysis attribute it with high confidence to North Korea’s TraderTraitor; about $2.7 billion was frozen within hours. No cryptography was broken and 0 quantum computers were involved: what failed was the signing infrastructure — and that is where the panic should be spent.

As of October 31, 2026, magic state distillation is the protocol that turns many noisy magic states into a few reliable ones so an error-corrected quantum computer can run T gates — the one gate family the codes cannot apply natively. Estimates put the toll at up to 95% of a machine (Google blog, 15-oct-2026) versus ≈2–10% (Litinski, Quantum 3, 205, 2019); in 2025–2026 it started being measured: first logical-level 5-to-1 distillation (QuEra–Harvard–MIT, Nature, jul-2025) and a cultivated 99.99%-fidelity T state with a 40× error cut on Google’s Willow (Science, 16-oct-2026).

As of October 30, 2026, the public record holds 0 RSA-2048 keys broken by a quantum computer and 0 breaches attributed to a quantum attack — yet “harvest now, decrypt later” is the reason security agencies set migration deadlines a decade before any Q-Day estimate: encrypted data captured today can be stored until a machine capable of reading it exists. The test is Mosca’s inequality (IACR ePrint 2015/1075): if confidentiality lifetime plus migration time exceeds the time to a cryptographically relevant quantum computer, the exposure has already begun.

As of October 30, 2026, none of the three quantum advantage claims IBM announced on July 30, 2026 has been peer-reviewed or adjudicated by a neutral referee. The flagship doped Clifford claim was matched classically in 14 days (all 2,051 published samples in 37.3 minutes on 256 GPUs, arXiv 2608.13110) and revised on September 2 with the challengers as co-authors and a new 64-qubit instance that already faces a classical reply on the Quantum Advantage Tracker; the Qedma and Algorithmiq results stand unchallenged but unreplicated. Rosetta Quantum scores all three, document by document.

As of October 29, 2026, Rosetta Quantum paired 9 dated quantum-roadmap commitments with each vendor's latest public statement: 4 slipped (+12 to +36 months), 1 moved 12 months earlier, 2 were delivered on schedule, and 2 fault-tolerance dates cannot be tested before 2029. The largest measured slip is Rigetti's 1,000-qubit system — promised for 2024 in October 2021, targeted for 2027 as of January 2026.

On October 27, 2026, NIST published the final version of IR 8547, its transition plan to post-quantum cryptography: RSA and elliptic-curve cryptography will be deprecated after 2030 and disallowed in FIPS-validated modules after 2035 — the same dates the November 2024 draft proposed. The deadlines are policy, not cryptanalysis: as of October 29, 2026, the public record still shows 0 RSA-2048 keys broken by a quantum computer and 0 breaches attributed to a quantum attack (re-verified by Rosetta Quantum on October 29, 2026).

As of October 28, 2026, D-Wave's March 2025 claim of “quantum computational supremacy on a useful problem” (Science, 2025-03-12) survives only inside a perimeter the company itself has redrawn: classical tensor networks reproduced the square, cubic and diamond lattice dynamics — in some cases with lower error than the annealer, by D-Wave's own published account (arXiv:2504.06283) — while D-Wave says four result families remain unreproduced (SEC 8-K, 2026-05-26). Rosetta Quantum found no independent adjudication of the full suite.

TL;DR (status as of 2026-10-27). Almost none, measured today: Rosetta Quantum screened the abstracts of the first 50 of the 98 new quant-ph submissions announced on arXiv on Tuesday 27 October 2026. Two abstracts (4.0%, Wilson 95% 1.1–13.5%) declare a measured comparison against a classical method — one reports parity with conventional methods, in the other the classical side wins. Zero of the 50 claim an advantage over a classical baseline (Wilson 95% upper bound 7.1%).

TL;DR (valid as of 26 October 2026). The frozen detector (hash 08ad337d, frozen 2026-09-07) stands at 12 hits in 27 prospective cases: 44.4%, 95% Wilson interval 27.6–62.7%, down from 53.3% last week. Twelve structures released in the 2026-10-19 to 2026-10-26 window were scored blind; four were hits. We then audited what each answer ligand chemically is. Exactly one of the twelve cases is a genuine allosteric site — 29CY, the SHP2 allosteric latch, targeted covalently on lysines — and the detector missed it with zero residue overlap, even though SHP2 is in its own 86-protein training set and all 14 ground-truth residues are distal. The other eleven answer ligands are active-site inhibitors, catalytic cofactors, a structural pigment and a membrane lipid. None of the four hits is an allosteric site: two are sulfamates on the catalytic zinc of carbonic anhydrases XII and XIII, one is chlorophyll a in photosystem II, one is a 1 kDa polyanion in cGAS. Two of those four also die under the routine's own mandatory checks: 31FD fails the distance-matched null (0.3405) and drops to rank 32 under anchor dilation; 22UK drops to rank 7 at R=6 A and stops being distal at R=8 A. The challenger stands at 5/28 against the incumbent's 12/28 — no promotion. All four quantitative readings of the scoreboard still contain our 32.6% retrospective rate. Zero forward hypotheses published. Zero QPU consumed.

As of October 26, 2026, “quantum utility” is a weaker claim than quantum advantage, by IBM’s own 2023 framing: useful accuracy at a scale beyond brute-force classical simulation, explicitly not a claim of exceeding classical computers. The experiment that named the term was matched classically in 12 days, later on a single laptop core; quantum advantage — beating all classical methods with rigorous validation — remains contested as of this date.

As of October 25, 2026, cat qubits hold the longest bit-flip protection measured on a superconducting qubit — a mean of ≈44 minutes on a single cat qubit (Alice & Bob, announced Sep 25, 2025) — while phase-flip times on the same device measured ≈0.4 µs, and in the sources Rosetta Quantum reviewed no cat or bosonic platform has demonstrated a logical-to-logical gate. The 100-logical-qubit machines remain promises dated 2028 (Nord Quantique) and 2030 (Alice & Bob), and DARPA’s QBI Stage C six includes zero bosonic teams (Oct 7, 2026).

No. As of October 23, 2026, zero operational weather or climate forecasts anywhere run on a quantum computer — Rosetta Quantum’s count under three declared criteria — and the published resource estimates explain why: inverting one forecast-scale linear system would need on the order of 10²⁹ gates (Scherer et al. 2017, as analyzed in arXiv:2210.17460). Meanwhile the classical bar keeps rising: ECMWF’s AI model AIFS has been operational since February 25, 2025, using about 1,000 times less energy per forecast (ECMWF).

As of October 22, 2026, there is no quantum internet: under the three criteria Rosetta Quantum declares below, zero networks that deliver entanglement between end users are in service anywhere. What is measured is a ledger of dated link demos: entanglement swapping over 17.6 km of deployed New York fiber (Qunnect–Cisco, February 18, 2026), entanglement sharing one fiber with two 800-Gbps classical channels over 24.4 km into Chicago (Optica Quantum, July 2026), a 420 km memory–memory record whose two memories sit in the same laboratory (PRL, August 11, 2026), a five-node swapping relay over 40 km of spooled fiber (arXiv, September 2026) and a trapped-ion repeater node on 17 km of metropolitan fiber (arXiv, October 20, 2026). The largest quantum network actually in operation — China’s 4,600 km backbone with over 150 users (Nature, January 2021) — runs QKD over trusted relays: key distribution, not a quantum internet.

As of October 21, 2026, a “logical-qubit demonstration” is not one standardized measurement: the ten rows in the public record that Rosetta Quantum lines up below — eight hardware demos, one simulation and one roadmap — report their headline numbers per QEC cycle, per logical Clifford gate, per circuit or per state preparation, with decoders that range from real-time to fully offline and with discard rates that range from zero to more than 96%. Zero pairs of those headline numbers share the same unit, the same decoder mode and the same discard rules at once, so none of them can be ranked against another without re-deriving both. The freshest row is two days old: on October 19, 2026 Quantinuum reported a color-code logical error rate its paper states as 5×10⁻⁶ per syndrome cycle at distance 7 (<a href="https://www.quantinuum.com/fault-tolerance-by-2029">Quantinuum paper</a>, fetched 2026-10-21) — with every decode in that experiment run offline.

As of October 20, 2026, quantum computing still does not beat strong classical solvers at portfolio optimization. In the largest published benchmark of the class — 270 instances built from real stock data, up to 1,000 assets — mixed-integer programming proves optimality in seconds, no quantum method could be tested past 30 assets, and the authors conclude there is «only very limited room for a potential quantum advantage» (arXiv:2509.17876, v3, 2026-10-07). The quarter’s other dated entries point the same way: Vanguard and IBM Quantum ran 109 bonds on quantum hardware and landed, after classical post-processing, 0.49% away from an optimum CPLEX proves in seconds (arXiv:2508.13557); an independent audit measured the QPU at 0.68% of a D-Wave hybrid solve budget (arXiv:2605.17623); and the first dated production commitment in the class is a promise for 2028 (Crédit Agricole CIB–Pasqal, Finadium, 2026-06-30). Rosetta Quantum re-verifies this entry quarterly; the verdict of the July 28 edition — not yet, and not close — is unchanged.

As of 19 October 2026 the frozen allosteric-site detector stands at 8 hits in 15 prospective cases: 53.3%, 95% Wilson interval 30.1-75.2%, down from 60.0%. Five structures published in the 2026-10-12 to 2026-10-19 window were scored blind and two were hits. Neither hit survives the routine's own mandatory check: 29ZZ and 9O69 are the only two of the five cases that lose rank 1 when the functional anchor is dilated to 8 A, falling to rank 15 and rank 11, while all three misses stay at rank 1-3. None of the five answer ligands is an allosteric modulator: an Fe3S4 catalytic cluster, a vanadate transition-state model in the nucleotide pocket, a crosslinked substrate arm, nirmatrelvir on a catalytic cysteine, and a sulfonamide on the active-site zinc of carbonic anhydrase II. The run also pins the root cause of a failure mode logged since week 37: UniProt annotates catalytic residues, not catalytic sites, so in MYH11 the whole functional annotation is the ATP P-loop 178-185 and in cathepsin K and fabB it is a bare three-residue triad, leaving the rest of the catalytic machinery labelled DISTAL. All five readings of the scoreboard still contain our 32.6% retrospective rate. Zero forward hypotheses published. Zero QPU consumed.

As of October 19, 2026, the only real-time decoder measured in a below-threshold quantum error correction experiment, in the dated record Rosetta Quantum compiled for this entry, is Google’s: it held a mean latency of 63 ± 17 µs while new syndrome rounds arrived every 1.1 µs on a 72-qubit superconducting processor (arXiv:2408.13687). A decoder is the classical algorithm that turns a quantum computer’s error-syndrome measurements into corrections, and it is a real-time problem by the experimenters’ own rule: decoding throughput «must keep pace» with the 1.1 µs cycle, or the syndrome backlog grows and the computation slows exponentially. The most accurate decoder published, Google DeepMind’s AlphaQubit, makes 6% fewer errors than tensor-network methods — and its authors state it is «still too slow» to correct errors in real time (blog.google, 2024-11-20). Rosetta Quantum reads the decoder race as the clearest classical bottleneck inside every quantum roadmap: at a million physical qubits, Riverlane’s CEO forecasts syndrome traffic near 100 TB/s (Ars Technica, 2024-07-09).

As of October 18, 2026, no neutral registry counts on-premise quantum computers, so the honest answer is a floor, not a total: the largest disclosed fleet belongs to IQM — 26 full-stack systems sold since 2018, 17 delivered to customers (company H1 2026 report, August 2026) — and the EuroHPC Joint Undertaking alone has procured six quantum computers and co-funded two more, with four open to users since August 1, 2026. In the dated record Rosetta Quantum compiled below, nine named buyers appear: six are governments, national labs or public HPC programs, and three are private companies — Davidson Technologies, Aramco and TOYO Corporation, the last with delivery due by the end of 2026. Public evidence of quantum advantage produced by any of these installations: zero. On-premise quantum computers are preparation purchases, not advantage purchases.

As of October 17, 2026, NVQLink is NVIDIA's open system architecture for coupling quantum processors to GPU nodes — RDMA over Converged Ethernet as transport, an open-source FPGA core on the controller side, and the CUDA-Q device_call runtime in software — announced October 28, 2025; it is not a cable and not a shipping product. Measured so far: a 3.84 µs mean loopback latency with no QPU in the loop, a 67 µs median decode of Quantinuum Helios data that cut a logical error rate 5.4x, and decoder benchmarks at 2.1–2.3 µs per round. Publicly documented production deployments running closed-loop quantum error correction through NVQLink: zero. Rosetta Quantum separates the architecture from the adoption press releases.

As of October 16, 2026, Helios is Quantinuum's commercial trapped-ion quantum computer: 98 fully connected barium-137 qubits with a measured 99.921% two-qubit gate fidelity, peer-reviewed in Nature 655 (June 2026), launched November 5, 2025. Measured: component fidelities, 94 error-detected / 48 error-corrected logical qubits — with over 96% of shots discarded in the deepest runs — and a certified-randomness amplification protocol. Promised: Apollo, universal fault tolerance, by 2030. Externally judged: nothing yet — Quantinuum remains in Stage B of DARPA's QBI (October 7, 2026). Rosetta Quantum keeps the three columns separate.

As of October 15, 2026, a blind challenge — a test where the answers are withheld until every submission is in — is the hardest judge a predictive model can face, because nobody can overfit what nobody can see. CASP has run that regime for protein structures since 1994 (predictioncenter.org), and on October 14, 2026 OpenBind opened the first blind challenge of its kind for protein–ligand binding — 400 unseen compounds against the Zika NS2B-NS3 protease, closing December 16 (blopig.com). Quantum computing still has no equivalent. Rosetta Quantum tracks where every verification claim sits on this ladder — including its own sealed predictions, which sit on the lowest rung.

As of 14 October 2026, six companies sit in Stage C — the final, hardware-testing stage — of DARPA's Quantum Benchmarking Initiative: Atom Computing, Diraq, IBM and IonQ (announced 7 October 2026) alongside Microsoft and PsiQuantum (via the US2QC pilot). QBI tests whether any approach can reach utility-scale operation — computational value exceeding cost — by 2033; a Stage C pass is an external audit of plans and prototypes, not a measured quantum advantage, and the public count of verified advantage claims does not move.

As of 13 October 2026, Rosetta Quantum sealed two dated forward commitments from its frozen allosteric detector — WEE1 (P30291) and PPP2R1A (P30153) — under seal RQ-PRED-ALLO-001, with a declared refutation test, a 2029-12-31 deadline and UNSCORABLE published as UNSCORABLE; of the 15 forward commitments in the queue, 0 pass all four house filters with verified overlap and 9 lost significance under a distance-matched null.

As of October 12, 2026, no financial regulator in Latin America has published a post-quantum migration deadline: a dated compilation checked Colombia’s SFC, Mexico’s CNBV and Banxico, Chile’s CMF and Brazil’s central bank and found none (AndesQubit, September 23, 2026), and Rosetta Quantum’s own scan of the public record today found none either. Meanwhile the clocks set elsewhere already reach the region — NIST will deprecate RSA and ECC after 2030 and plans to disallow them after 2035 (NIST IR 8547, November 2024), the US executive order fixes December 31, 2030 for encryption and December 31, 2031 for signatures on high-impact federal systems (EO 14412, June 22, 2026), and ≈67% of human HTTPS traffic on Cloudflare’s network already negotiates post-quantum encryption (Cloudflare Radar, April 15, 2026). What a company in the region should prepare this year costs inventory and contract language, not hardware: five steps, each with its source, below.

As of October 11, 2026, the largest protein modeled with help from a quantum computer is a 12,635-atom trypsin–ligand complex in water, reported by Cleveland Clinic, RIKEN and IBM (arXiv:2605.01138, May 2026) and named a finalist for the 2026 ACM Gordon Bell Prize on September 9, 2026. Read past the headline: the quantum processors touched at most 94 qubits’ worth of the most entangled fragments, the «210 times improvement in accuracy» covers «a specific step of the workflow» measured against the team’s own previous quantum pipeline, and IBM’s own write-up states that the method «does not yet outperform the best classical approaches» (IBM Quantum blog, May 5, 2026) — while fully classical fragment chemistry ran a ≈100,000-atom system at MP2 level in about 2 hours on Fugaku in February 2025 (J. Comput. Chem. 46, e70052). Rosetta Quantum reads an atom count the way it reads any claim: by asking what level of theory, what quantity against what reference, and who — quantum or classical — did which part of the work.

As of October 10, 2026, exactly one quantum-advantage claim in the public record is attached to a delivered application rather than a synthetic benchmark: certified randomness — 71,313 bits of entropy produced over the internet by the 56-qubit Quantinuum H2-1 and certified with 1.1 ExaFLOPS of classical supercomputing (Liu et al., Nature, March 26, 2025). The claim survives because its output is checked rather than estimated, and its fine print is printed by its own authors: security holds against «a restricted class of realistic near-term adversaries», certification costs more than generation by design (Aaronson & Hung put the practical ceiling near 60 qubits, arXiv:2303.01625), and the field’s 2026 review still lists efficiently verifiable certified randomness as a future milestone (Hangleiter, arXiv:2603.09901). Rosetta Quantum reads it as the strongest surviving claim — with every asterisk printed beside it.

As of October 9, 2026, zero RSA-2048 keys have been broken by any quantum computer; the largest error-corrected logical register on public record holds 48 logical qubits (Quantinuum Helios, Quantum Computing Report, November 5, 2025); and the best published requirement estimate for breaking RSA-2048 is a machine with under one million noisy qubits running for under a week (Gidney, arXiv:2505.15917, May 2025) — about 128× today’s logical record, measured against the ≈6,144 logical qubits of the 2019 baseline estimate. Rosetta Quantum turns that gap into a position it can be scored on: no verified RSA-2048 break before January 1, 2031; a central window of 2033–2039; a late bound at the end of 2040 — sealed today under hash 9b7113dcb85bb478… and re-scored every six months, whichever way the record moves.

As of October 8, 2026, the answer is zero. Across Y Combinator’s three most recent fully launched batches — Winter 2026 (214 companies, Extruct tracker), Spring 2026 (194, StartGround) and Summer 2026 (233, RoundFunded) — roughly 641 companies, not one is a quantum computing startup. YC’s own directory tags 3 quantum computing companies in its entire history of 5,000+ funded startups: Rigetti Computing (S14), Menten AI (W20) and Conductor Quantum (S24). The nearest miss inside the window is Dipole Labs (Summer 2026), a photonics company whose own site targets «AI and quantum infrastructure»; the nearest bet outside it is Sygaldry (Spring 2025 batch), which raised $139M in April 2026 (Quantum Computing Report) on claims that remain at promise level. Rosetta Quantum prints the zero — and every row behind it — with a source and a date.

As of October 7, 2026, only one list price answers this question in its own unit: IBM sells on-demand quantum runtime at $96 per minute (Quantum Computing Report, March 20, 2026). Everyone else sells other currencies. Per-shot prices on AWS Braket span $0.000425 (Rigetti Cepheus) to $0.08 (IonQ Forte) — a 188× spread, our arithmetic — plus a flat $0.30 per task; Azure Quantum bills IonQ by gate-shots with per-job minimums up to $168.20, Pasqal at €3,000 per QPU-hour and Rigetti at $0.02 per 10 milliseconds; Quantinuum sells circuit-shaped credits from $125,000 per month; D-Wave publishes no unit price at all. Rosetta Quantum read the public price pages today and prints the catalog below with a source and a date on every row.

As of October 6, 2026, quantum computing is used in production for research, not for business advantage: peer-reviewed physics on analog simulators, algorithm benchmarking on pre-registered suites, training on free SDKs, and one applied certified-randomness demonstration (Nature, March 2025). The industry’s more than $1 billion of 2025 revenue (McKinsey Quantum Technology Monitor 2026) comes from selling machines, cloud access and services — not from any workload with independently verified quantum advantage: that count, in Rosetta Quantum’s ledger and in the public record, is 0. The projections — IBM’s fault-tolerant Starling for 2029, up to $2.7 trillion of economic value by 2035 (McKinsey) — are declared targets, and this post will keep them in the future tense.

As of October 5, 2026, Rosetta Quantum’s ledger adopts one unit for the margin of victory in any quantum-vs-classical comparison: the time-to-solution ratio at matched budget — classical time over quantum time, same instance, same declared quality floor, budgets sealed before the run — published with its uncertainty, plus a twin energy unit whenever power data exists. The measured record is why win/lose is not enough: Google’s 2019 “10,000 years” became 86.4 classical seconds against Sycamore’s 600 for the same 3 million samples, at higher fidelity (Zhao et al., arXiv:2406.18889); the Gaussian-boson-sampling margin shrank “nine orders of magnitude” by algorithms alone (Bulmer et al., Sci. Adv. 8, eabl9236, 2022); and Rosetta’s own quantum arm posted a +0.073 margin at p = 0.0949 — a margin that licenses nothing. From today, every new comparison row in the ledger will carry a ratio, not a medal.

Week 41: one eligible structure, zero hits. The accumulated prospective scorecard of Rosetta Quantum's hash-frozen allosteric detector stands at 3 of 6 (50.0%, 95% Wilson interval 18.8-81.2%) under the eligibility rule currently in force, or 2 of 6 (33.3%, 9.7-70.0%) if last week's heme A is read as a catalytic cofactor; both intervals still contain the retrospective 32.6% the detector was built on, so neither reading distinguishes anything yet. The single case was 30KD, human SIRT2 with a myristoylated-lysine peptide, released 2026-09-30 and 1.45 A: the detector predicted pocket A99-A103/A106-A107/A134 blind at 12:49:23Z, the real myristoyl channel sits 3.8 A away, overlap zero. The miss is clean and the pocket also fails the distance-matched null (0.0805) and the cavity check. Valid as of October 5, 2026. This run could not be written to the public ledger database: the Cloudflare connector has been disconnected since October 1 and the record is pending insertion.

As of October 4, 2026, the quantum-walk arm of Rosetta Quantum’s own allosteric-pocket detector has lost its pre-registered match against classical graph mathematics — and the anatomy of the loss is the finding. Under a sealed budget-parity table that gave the quantum side 12 free parameters and the deterministic classical propagators 0, the model using all six propagators failed to out-rank the model using only the three classical ones: paired Wilcoxon p = 0.0949 on 90 proteins, mean delta +0.073, quantum-advantage crossings measured: 0. The loss cannot be blamed on a starved quantum arm — it had the extra knobs and still did not win. The re-match condition is already written: a new pre-registration sealed before the run, the same parity, paired p < 0.05 with positive delta; it will be published whichever way it lands.

As of October 3, 2026, no negative in Rosetta Quantum’s own ledger — not our detector’s zeros, not our pre-registered quantum-walk test — authorizes the instruction “stop looking there,” and that is the point: a model’s “no” only rules something out when the test was specified in advance and has measured error rates behind it. Our allosteric-pocket detector returned zero overlapping residues on 58 of its 86 benchmark proteins, and the zeros include ABL1, whose allosteric myristoyl pocket is the binding site of asciminib, a drug the FDA approved on October 29, 2021. Because the detector’s false-positive rate on proteins without a known site has never been measured, those zeros license nothing. Our one pre-registered negative (Wilcoxon p = 0.095, n = 90) licenses exactly one sentence — and it is not “there is nothing there.”

Prospective validation means scoring a model against data that did not exist when the model was frozen. It is the only evaluation a training-set number cannot flatter, and it is expensive: Rosetta Quantum froze an allosteric-pocket detector on September 7, 2026 with its code hashed byte-for-byte, and four weekly runs later the prospective scoreboard stands at five cases — 3 of 5 under the scoring rule in force, 2 of 5 under a stricter reading of the same evidence. Both intervals still contain our own retrospective rate of 32.6%, so after a month the honest answer is that the number cannot yet tell skill from a coin flip. Rosetta publishes it weekly anyway, including the week the run failed to start.

As of October 1, 2026, quantum computing does not accelerate generative AI. The number of demonstrated quantum speedups on any LLM workload — training or inference — in the public record is zero. The scale gap is the story. Meta's Llama 3.1 flagship was pre-trained with 3.8×10²⁵ FLOPs on 15.6T tokens using up to 16,000 H100 GPUs (arXiv:2407.21783), while the largest LLM-adjacent run on real quantum hardware used 128 qubits to compute one cosine similarity — and ran slower than the classical baseline (arXiv:2512.02619). Rosetta Quantum keeps this verdict at 0 until a measured, reproducible run at matched budget says otherwise.

As of September 30, 2026, quantum entanglement is a measured physical resource — correlations stronger than any local classical model, verified loophole-free in 2015 (S = 2.42 ± 0.20, p = 0.039; Hensen et al., Nature 526) and distributed by satellite over 1,203 km (Yin et al., Science 356, 2017) — and it transmits exactly zero information on its own: the no-communication theorem (Ghirardi, Rimini & Weber, 1980) forbids using entanglement alone to send any message, faster than light or otherwise.

As of September 29, 2026, you can evaluate a quantum computing preprint without reading the math: check what the abstract claims against what the results section measured, ask who ran the classical baseline, look for public code and data, search for independent re-runs, and — above all — read the authors’ own caveats. In all seven cases documented in Rosetta Quantum’s ledger between 2021 and 2026, from Google’s «conservative assumptions» to RAND labelling its own 125 MW estimate «extremely rough», the sentence that undercut the headline was already in the primary source. arXiv itself states that material «is not peer-reviewed by arXiv».

Week 2026-W40: of 190 PDB entries released between 2026-09-21 and 2026-09-28, exactly one survived to be rendered — 36CV, cyanate-bound bovine cytochrome c oxidase. The frozen detector (hash 08ad337d, 86 training proteins, 10 annotation-free features) predicted blind at 12:22:00Z and picked a pocket around residue A439. That entry carries three ligands, and the answer key is not unique: the pocket overlaps the heme A site by 4 residues (hit), and misses the Cu-A centre and the cyanate site entirely (miss, miss). Under the rule currently in force — score against the ligand with the most distal residues — the case is a hit and the prospective scoreboard reads 3 of 5, 60%, Wilson 95% 23–88%. Read heme A as what it is, the catalytic prosthetic group of a respiratory enzyme, and the case is a miss: 2 of 5, 40%, 12–77%. Under the stricter rule proposed last week the case would not have been eligible at all and the board would stay at 2 of 4. All three intervals contain the same detector's retrospective rate of 32.6% (N=86), so the ambiguity changes no conclusion. It should change the rule, and that decision is open. Independently of the ligand question, the predicted pocket fails the mandatory distance-matched null (frac_above 0.4145) and moves under anchor dilation at both 6 Å and 8 Å: even the reading that scores it a hit describes a pocket indistinguishable from a random one at comparable distance from the active site. The student model, which residualises the examinee's score against distance, hit the cyanate site where the examinee missed it and missed the heme where the examinee hit it; McNemar has 3 discordant pairs and no power, so no promotion is proposed. No forward hypothesis was published. The blind-retrospective line holds at 0 of 1.

As of September 28, 2026, most of what computers do all day will not get faster on a quantum computer. Three ceilings are proven theorems: unstructured search gains at most Grover's quadratic √N (BBBV, SIAM J. Comput., 1997), parity of n bits saves at most ×2 (Beals et al., J. ACM, 2001), and sorting stays at n log n (Høyer–Neerbek–Shi, Algorithmica, 2002). On error-corrected hardware the quadratic class even inverts: ≈1 day on ≈1 million physical qubits vs ≈4 CPU-minutes classical for the same spin glass (Sanders et al., PRX Quantum, 2020) — ×360 slower, by Rosetta Quantum's own declared arithmetic. The honest lane for expected exponential acceleration stays narrow: simulating quantum systems and breaking specific cryptography — in the future tense.

As of September 27, 2026, the difference is the contract: an analog quantum simulator dials a Hamiltonian into hardware and lets physics evolve continuously — no gates, no error correction, one family of problems per machine — while a universal gate-based computer applies discrete gates from a universal set and can, in principle, run any quantum algorithm, but only behind fault tolerance it does not yet have at scale. The largest public quantum arrays today are analog (256 atoms on AWS Braket since November 2022; 3,000 atoms in continuous lab operation, Nature, Sep-2025), an analog machine will never run Shor, and neither paradigm holds an independently verified advantaged solve — the latest analog advantage claim drew a classical re-run on September 3, 2026.

As of September 26, 2026, you program a quantum computer in ordinary Python through open-source SDKs: Qiskit (used by 69.1% of surveyed developers), PennyLane (30.8%), Cirq (17.5%) and the Amazon Braket SDK (12.1%), per the Unitary Foundation’s 2025 survey of 1,400+ practitioners — all Apache-2.0, all free to install, all shipping free simulators. The workflow is identical everywhere: build a circuit, let the transpiler rewrite it for a target machine, execute on a simulator or a paid QPU, read back thousands of probabilistic shots. The whole stack can be learned for $0; the QPU minute is the only thing that costs money — and the last thing to buy.

As of September 25, 2026, a working quantum computer draws tens of kilowatts — Google ran Sycamore at ≈26 kW total wall power (RAND, 2023) and D-Wave rates its Advantage at 25 kW maximum (vendor datasheet) — about a thousandth of an exascale supercomputer (Frontier: 24,607 kW, TOP500 June 2026; the ratio is our arithmetic). But watts are not verdicts: on the one task with a claimed quantum win, a 2024 classical rerun spent 0.29 kWh against the quantum run’s 4.3 kWh (Fu et al., arXiv:2407.00769). Measured end-to-end energy advantage for quantum hardware on the public record today: none. Rosetta Quantum reads energy claims the way it reads advantage claims: measured first, promised second.

As of September 24, 2026, the 10,000-year margin behind Google’s 2019 quantum supremacy claim is gone: the same sampling task has been run classically in 86.4 seconds on 1,432 GPUs, at higher fidelity (Natl. Sci. Rev., jun-2024), and the first peer-reviewed history of the field lists the 2019 claim as refuted (Quantum 10, 2198, sep-2026). The 200-second run itself stands; the margin does not. Google’s larger circuits — 67 qubits (Nature 634, oct-2024) and 105 qubits (Willow, dec-2024) — remain unrefuted, as estimates rather than verified margins. Rosetta Quantum reads the seven-year clock below.

As of September 23, 2026, Gaussian boson sampling (GBS) is quantum computing’s longest-running claim-and-counterattack series. Jiuzhang 1.0’s ~600-million-year classical margin (Science, Dec 2020) was cut to “several months” — nine orders of magnitude — by classical algorithms alone (Science Advances, Jan 2022); Borealis’s >9,000-year margin (Nature, Jun 2022) was outperformed on its own benchmarks by a loss-exploiting tensor-network sampler (Nature Physics, 2024); and Jiuzhang 4.0 (Nature, May 2026) now detects up to 3,050 photons and estimates >10⁴² years against that same algorithm on El Capitan — a figure no external team has tested yet. Rosetta Quantum reads the series as one lesson: every GBS margin published before 2026 shrank or fell, and no GBS application advantage exists in the public record.

As of September 22, 2026, no public, peer-reviewed dataset demonstrates a working topological qubit. Microsoft’s Majorana 1 (Feb 19, 2025) carries a Nature editors’ note stating the results do not evidence Majorana zero modes; Majorana 2 (Jun 2, 2026) reports a 22-second parity lifetime on one nanowire, Z-basis only, in a preprint without peer review. In June 2026 Nature published a formal critique of the underlying protocol and Microsoft’s reply — Rosetta Quantum reads both sides, every claim linked and dated.

Week 2026-W39: 4 eligible structures, 2 blind hits. Rosetta Q's prospective scoreboard moves from 0 of 0 to 2 of 4 — 50%, Wilson 95% interval 15% to 85%. That interval contains the same detector's retrospective rate (32.6%, N=86): with four cases the number separates nothing, and it is published because the rule is to publish every week, not because it means anything yet. The frozen detector (hash 08ad337d, 86 training proteins, 10 annotation-free features) predicted blind on four PDB entries released 2026-09-16, nine days after the freeze; it hit on human chaperonin CCT (9S72) and AKT1 (9TMV), and missed on EGFR (9WR8) and yeast acetohydroxyacid synthase (9Y8Y). Three caveats travel with the figure: two of the four cases are the same UniProt accession as training proteins; three of the four ligands are not clean allosteric modulators but cofactor mimics or ATP-competitive compounds that read as distal only because the functional annotation is incomplete; and both hits stop being distal once the active-site anchor is dilated to 8 Å. The run also resolved the infrastructure failure that stopped week 38: the document transport was inserting one space character at byte 20377 of engine.py, and removing it makes the file reproduce its frozen SHA-256. The blind-retrospective line holds at 0 of 1.

As of September 21, 2026, quantum key distribution (QKD) is a hardware method for agreeing encryption keys over a dedicated optical link — it is not post-quantum cryptography (PQC) and it does not run on your existing network. Of the six Western security agencies with published QKD positions tracked by Rosetta Quantum — NSA (Aug 2021), the UK NCSC (Mar 2020), and France, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden in a joint paper (Jan 2024) — none recommends QKD as a primary quantum-safe control; all point to PQC first. For most companies the 2026 answer will stay: migrate to PQC on the NCSC published 2028/2031/2035 clock, and keep QKD on the watch-list.

As of September 20, 2026, quantum sensing already ships paid products: chip-scale atomic clocks have been catalog items since 2011 (GPS World), wearable-MEG magnetometer systems have sold commercially since 2021 (Magnetics Magazine) and more than 20 absolute quantum gravimeters operate in the field (Exail, Dec 2025). The measured size: about $470 million of 2025 vendor-surveyed revenue, projected — not measured — to reach $1.1 billion by 2028 (QED-C, Apr 2026), with more than a third of surveyed vendors reporting zero 2025 sales. Rosetta Quantum files the branch at that measured size: real products, a still-small industry, and no third-party benchmark culture yet.

HHL (Harrow–Hassidim–Lloyd, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 150502, 2009) is a quantum algorithm that prepares a quantum state encoding the solution of a linear system in time polylogarithmic in the dimension of the system — under four conditions its fine print attaches: fast state loading, efficient simulation of the matrix, a small condition number, and settling for samples instead of the full solution vector. As of September 15, 2026 that fine print is the story: the 2014–2016 wave of quantum machine-learning claims built on HHL was largely dequantized by classical algorithms (Tang 2018 and successors), and the largest HHL application ever run on quantum hardware is an 8×8 system (JPMorganChase on Quantinuum, Sci. Rep. 2024). Rosetta Quantum reads the fine print line by line.

Week 2026-W38: the frozen detector did not run and the prospective scoreboard did not advance — it holds at 0 of 0 (opened 2026-W37). The reason is infrastructure, not the model: this week's compute sandbox could not obtain the detector's frozen source code byte-exact. Six of the seven code files reproduced exactly; the seventh (engine.py) arrived through the file-transport layer with a one-byte artifact, and the content-addressed snapshot that exists precisely to prevent this was delivered through the same lossy channel and also arrived corrupted. By the project's own rule — if the frozen model cannot be verified byte-exact, no blind predictions are made and the failure is published — no science was run. The model itself is verified intact: its weights-plus-code manifest hash recomputes to 08ad337d exactly. This is a delivery failure, not a model change. Blind-retrospective line unchanged at 0 of 1.

Quantum phase estimation (QPE) is the algorithm that reads exact eigenvalues — molecular energies, Shor’s periods — out of a fault-tolerant quantum computer, and as of September 14, 2026 it has never run at useful scale: the record error-corrected run computed one hydrogen molecule on one logical qubit (Quantinuum, arXiv:2505.09133, May 2025), while one useful chemistry run is estimated at about four million physical qubits (Lee et al., PRX Quantum 2, 030305, 2021). Rosetta Quantum files QPE as the destination today’s hardware is still rehearsing for.

Status as of September 13, 2026: no — on every power-grid problem with a public, dated measurement, classical solvers still win, and the only independent benchmark of hybrid quantum pipelines on grid problems (5–13 generators) found they did not beat uniform random sampling.

As of September 12, 2026, the team a first quantum project needs is mostly not a quantum team: 55% of quantum-industry job postings in 2022–23 asked for at most a bachelor’s degree (Chicago Quantum Exchange, 2024), a QED-C survey of 57 companies found most skills sought are not quantum-specific, and the first two evidence gates of a pilot — the classical baseline and the noise-free simulation — need no quantum hardware expertise at all. Rosetta Quantum’s own ledger illustrates it: the number every verdict is measured against was produced by a classical solver operator, not a quantum physicist.

As of September 11, 2026, tensor networks — classical algorithms that compress quantum states — have matched or beaten four flagship “beyond-classical” claims after publication: Google’s Sycamore sampling (claimed Oct 2019, spoofed Mar 2021, arXiv:2103.03074), IBM’s 127-qubit utility experiment (claimed Jun 14, 2023, out-simulated in under two weeks, arXiv:2306.14887), D-Wave’s annealing supremacy (claimed Mar 12, 2025, contested the same month, Science adx2728) and IBM’s doped-Clifford run (claimed Jul 2026, reproduced as “compatible” in about three weeks, arXiv:2608.13110). One 2025 claim, Google’s Quantum Echoes, still stands. Rosetta Quantum treats tensor networks as the default challenger every new claim must outlive.

As of September 10, 2026, “hybrid quantum-classical” names at least three different architectures, and the only third-party wall-clock decomposition audit of a commercial hybrid solver measured the QPU active for 0.034 s of a 5-second run — about 0.7% of measured run time (arXiv:2605.17623, June 2026). Rosetta Quantum’s audit rule: a hybrid result is unattributed until you see the time split, an ablation, and a same-pipeline classical baseline.

As of 10 September 2026, 12 instances on the tracker have both a quantum arm and a classical challenger. In 8 of them every classical rival shares an institution with the quantum team — and all five instances of the observable-estimations registry are in that group, while all three classically-verifiable instances are contested by outsiders.

As of September 9, 2026, QOBLIB (Quantum Optimization Benchmarking Library) is the closest thing quantum optimization has to a pre-registered referee: 10 problem classes and 1,264 fixed public instances, with a leaderboard where classical solvers hold the board — 533 instances solved to proven optimality, and, in our read of the board, 2 quantum-hardware entries holding a best-known result and 0 holding a proven optimum. Rosetta Quantum explains what makes a benchmark pre-registered and how a decision-maker uses this one for free, before spending anything on quantum hardware.

As of September 8, 2026, PsiQuantum has published the strongest component-level metrics in photonic quantum computing — led by a 99.22% two-qubit fusion fidelity on 300-mm foundry chips (Nature, February 2025) — and no public system-level result: no algorithm run, no logical qubit, no machine. The same company holds the largest capital stack in the field: a US$1B Series E at a $7B valuation (September 2025), A$940M from Australia's governments (2024), a $500M+ Illinois package (2024) and a $125M DARPA Stage C agreement (July 2026). Rosetta Q tracks both ledgers — the measured and the promised — below.

Week 2026-W37: 1 eligible structure, 0 blind hits. On 2026-09-07 Rosetta Q froze its de-novo allosteric-site detector with a recorded hash (08ad337d, 86 training proteins, 10 annotation-free features) and began a weekly public scoreboard. Of 165 PDB entries released in the previous seven days, one passed every filter — human phenylalanine hydroxylase with belinostat, entry 9T1O — and the frozen model missed it by 7.2 angstroms while all five of its internal confidence checks passed. The cumulative prospective scoreboard opens at 0 of 0 because the freeze is today; the case is logged on a separate blind-retrospective line at 0 of 1, 95% Wilson interval 0 to 79%.

A quantum walk is the quantum analogue of a random walk: instead of taking one random path, the walker spreads as a wave over every path at once and the paths interfere. As of September 7, 2026, quantum walks have proven speedups in the query model — including a provable exponential one on glued-trees graphs — and can in principle run any quantum program, but measured end-to-end advantage on a commercial problem stands at zero; Rosetta Q’s own quantum walk currently loses to its classical rival at equal budget (p = 0.095).

As of September 6, 2026, quantum cloud providers cannot be compared on price alone: the same illustrative job on the same IonQ Forte processor comes to $36.92, $80.30, or $168.20 depending on which cloud you enter through and one error-mitigation setting — a ×4.6 spread computed from published prices. Rosetta Q's framework: write to the portable layer (OpenQASM 3 / QIR), price your own circuit in each provider's billing unit before committing, and treat expiring prepaid credit as the strongest lock-in in the catalog.

NISQ — Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum, John Preskill’s 2018 name for quantum computers that run without error correction — is still the era quantum computing is in as of September 5, 2026, but the exit has become measurable: error correction below threshold was demonstrated on real hardware in December 2024 (Google Willow, Nature 638), the largest commercial machine now advertises 48 logical qubits (Quantinuum Helios, Nov 2025), and no machine yet clears Preskill’s own post-NISQ bar — the “megaquop”: ≈100 logical qubits running ≈10,000-deep circuits at ≈10⁻⁶ error per operation (arXiv:2502.17368). Rosetta Q’s verdict: leaving, not left.

In an internal audit dated September 2, 2026, Rosetta Q measured that its own de novo allosteric-site detector fires at the 11th percentile of distance to the active site while real allosteric sites sit at the 28th, and that once the statistical null is matched for that distance the project's headline p-value falls from 5.4e-6 to 0.0138. The result still crosses 0.05, but removing a single protein takes it to 0.057. Rosetta Q is publishing the correction because a control this cheap is one any reviewer can run in an afternoon.

No — as of September 3, 2026, no quantum computer has ever broken a Bitcoin key: the measured record for a public quantum attack on elliptic-curve cryptography is a disputed 15-bit demonstration, against the 256-bit keys Bitcoin actually uses. On paper the target is closer than RSA-2048 — Google's March 2026 blueprint estimates under 500,000 physical qubits and minutes per key, on a machine nobody has built — and between roughly 1.7M and 6.9M BTC already sit behind exposed public keys. Rosetta Q reads both clocks, with sources.

As of September 2, 2026: no single company is ahead — each major vendor leads a different race. Google leads on error correction and a synthetic-task advantage (Willow, 0.143% error/cycle; Quantum Echoes ~13,000×). Quantinuum leads on logical-qubit execution (Helios, 98 physical → 48 error-corrected logical qubits). IBM leads on ecosystem and its 2029 roadmap (200 logical). IonQ leads on a 99.99% two-qubit fidelity claim (lab prototype). Qubit count does not rank them, and the count of useful end-to-end advantages measured on a real problem is 0 for every vendor.

They share the word "quantum" and little else a buyer should act on. An annealer is one fixed algorithm built as a machine: it relaxes toward low-energy states of an Ising problem — 4,400+ physical qubits shipping today. A gate-based computer is a programmable machine that runs arbitrary circuits — Shor, Grover, chemistry — at 100–1,121 physical qubits. The equivalence theorem people quote covers an idealized cousin of annealing, not the hardware that ships. Neither paradigm has a measured end-to-end advantage on a useful problem as of September 2026.

As science, measurably yes: neutral atoms produced the largest fault-tolerant architecture demo published to date (448 atoms; Nature, Nov 2025), the best physical-to-logical encoding ratio reported on any platform (≈4.7:1), and a 50-author industry roadmap with hard numbers (Jul 2026). As computing you can buy advantage from, not yet: per-operation speed runs 100–1,000× behind superconducting machines, the flagship logical-qubit systems are sales and roadmaps rather than measurements, and measured end-to-end wins on useful problems stand at zero — same as every architecture.

QRAM (quantum random access memory) is the device that would let a quantum computer read classical data in superposition — the unstated hardware assumption behind most claimed exponential speedups on classical datasets. Without it, loading N numbers costs about N operations, which flattens those speedups before they start. Status in August 2026: the first experimental bucket-brigade QRAM was published in June 2026 — 8 memory cells at 60% fidelity — while the standard-setting survey (Quantum, Dec 2025) argues that cheap, scalable passive QRAM is unlikely with existing proposals. No QRAM at useful scale exists. Status as of: August 2026.

A logical qubit is one dependable qubit assembled out of many unreliable physical ones through quantum error correction. The physical-to-logical ratio is the exchange rate that converts the qubit counts vendors announce into the logical qubits algorithms actually consume. Measured ratios in 2024–2025 run from 2:1 (Quantinuum Helios, at a state-prep benchmark) to 101:1 (Google Willow, one memory qubit); roadmaps assume 25:1 to 100:1 at far harder targets. A ratio quoted without its error target is a number without units. As of August 2026, no machine has run a useful end-to-end algorithm on logical qubits.

Neither refuted nor intact. On August 13, 2026 — day 14 of the claim — Manabe, Gu & Pan computed exact amplitudes for all 2,051 of IBM's published bitstring batches in 37.3 minutes on 256 GPUs, and instead of tearing the experiment down, independently confirmed its fidelity bound (log-XEB 0.35 vs. the certified ≥0.284). What weakened is the hardness half: the instance's quasi-1D geometry admits cheap amplitude computation, and the largest tensor came in 256× below IBM's estimate. The sampling task itself has not been reproduced classically. Status as of 2026-08-28: standing, narrower.

An advantaged solve is one problem instance where a quantum recipe measurably beat the strongest classical baseline its user could field — same instance, same budget, measured, dated, and re-runnable. It is a unit of evidence, not a unit of billing, and it is equally honest about counting zero. As of August 2026, zero advantaged solves are verified in Rosetta Q's ledger — including its own runs.

You can read a "quantum advantage" headline in about ten minutes, without being an expert, by asking five questions in a fixed order: is the task useful or synthetic; did the strongest classical rival run the same instance on a matched budget; are re-runnable artifacts published; is the error bound quantitative or heuristic; and how long has the claim survived the classical counterattack. Most reversed claims of the past decade would have exited early in that tree. The three IBM claims of July 30, 2026 are currently open — and the first classical response to one of them arrived 14 days after publication. Status as of August 25, 2026.

No — not yet, and the gap is measured in orders of magnitude. As of August 2026, every named industrial battery computation on quantum hardware is a toy demo of 4 to 12 noisy physical qubits, while published fault-tolerant costings for battery molecules ask for hundreds to roughly 100,000 logical qubits — and the best published error-correction demo produces exactly 1 logical qubit. Measured quantum advantage on any battery material: zero. The genuinely quantum bottleneck is real but narrower than the marketing: for most battery materials, classical DFT with corrections already delivers in production.

Grover's algorithm gives a proven quadratic speedup for unstructured search — about √N oracle queries instead of N — and the ceiling is proven too: no quantum algorithm can do better. It does not speed up searching your stored data (loading N items costs about N operations), it is not a practical threat to AES (NIST expects little or no advantage), and the largest better-than-classical run to date used 5 qubits — a 32-item space. Status as of August 2026.

Chemicals and life sciences, travel and logistics, and financial services top the 2026 adoption surveys — but what those surveys measure is spending in anticipation, not value in production. As of August 2026: 300+ companies work with quantum vendors and a third spend over $10M a year (McKinsey QTM 2026); 13% self-report some production use, with no published criterion (IQM/TQI survey); and the top rung of the ladder — production with a measured advantage over a strong classical baseline — is empty in every industry.

A quantum benchmark can mislead without anyone lying. Seven protocol-level design choices — cherry-picked instances, uneven tuning budgets, best-of-N reporting, a metric chosen after the fact, silent post-selection, a weak-class classical rival, and simulation sold as hardware — each move the verdict before a single qubit fires. Every documented benchmark reversal in the public record traces to at least one of them. The fix is protocol, not intent: pin every one of those decisions in public, before the run. Status as of: August 2026.

As of August 2026, the most-cited aggregate puts public commitments to quantum at $56.7 billion (QED-C, April 2026). But "commitment" is an elastic word: that total mixes multi-year budgets, authorizations that expired without new appropriations, procurement contracts, and third-party estimates nobody can verify. In the same period those commitments grew by $12.7B, governments supplied just 3% of direct startup funding (McKinsey, April 2026). The honest number always comes with three tags: jurisdiction, date, and disbursement status.

A Hamiltonian, in the optimization context, is not quantum magic: it is your cost function translated into the format quantum machines minimize — energy. The chain is mechanical: business problem → cost function → QUBO → Ising → Hamiltonian; the minimum-energy configuration spells out the best solution. Two honest footnotes: constraints get encoded as penalty terms that can distort the landscape (a miscalibrated weight makes an infeasible answer win — we show it in four lines of arithmetic), and the fact that every NP problem can be written this way (Lucas, 2014) does not mean a quantum machine solves it better. Status as of: August 2026.

As of August 2026, the money asks for what the marketing skips. XPRIZE Quantum Applications ($5M, 7 finalists) cut teams that failed to demonstrate 'an advantage over strong classical baselines'; Wellcome Leap's Q4Bio paid $2M for an end-to-end run on >50 qubits of real hardware — while we found no announced winner for its $5M prize for demonstrated quantum advantage. Prize rulebooks are the industry's honest requirements document: what a paying third party demands before calling something evidence.

As of August 2026, no economically independent body runs every quantum machine under the same rule — same instances, same budgets, re-runnable artifacts, live verdicts. That ledger does not exist because every actor in the ecosystem has a rational reason not to maintain it; the closest attempts (DARPA QBI, Metriq, QOBLIB) each cover a piece of the job, and none covers all of it.

No — not on classical data, and QML is the one class where the clock ran backwards: the flagship exponential speedups were dequantized to polynomial in 2018–2020, published benchmarks find out-of-the-box classical models ahead, and zero end-to-end QML wins against a strong classical baseline on classical data have been published as of August 2026. The one measured learning advantage uses quantum data: a 100-mode photonic experiment learned with ~11.8 orders of magnitude fewer samples (Science, Sep 2025).

Error mitigation is statistical post-processing that squeezes less-biased answers out of today's noisy quantum machines — no extra qubits, no logical qubit. Its price is a shot multiplier: 2.5× just to enter with debiasing on IonQ via Braket, and a sample count that is mathematically proven to blow up — superpolynomially, in the worst case — as circuits grow (Quek et al., Nature Physics 2024). It is a bridge tactic priced per shot, not a destination. Status as of: August 2026.

The two dominant architectures trade the same physics in opposite directions. Superconducting circuits switch ~1,000× faster (two-qubit gates in ~60 ns vs ~70 µs) and cost ~190× less per shot on public clouds; trapped ions hold the production-machine fidelity record (~99.92% median two-qubit), all-to-all connectivity, and coherence measured in seconds instead of microseconds. No trade-off axis is resolved — and neither class has demonstrated end-to-end advantage on a useful problem. Status as of August 2026.

Radical reproducibility means publishing the complete re-run unit — raw data, full code, random seeds, the exact problem instance and the compute budget — together, so anyone can re-execute the benchmark and get the same number without asking permission. As of August 2026 it is the standard that separates a benchmark from an anecdote: every famous reversal of a quantum computing claim was executed by someone re-running public artifacts, not by someone re-reading the paper.

VQE (Variational Quantum Eigensolver) is a hybrid quantum–classical algorithm that estimates molecular ground-state energies: a parametrized circuit prepares a trial state, the processor measures its energy, a classical optimizer closes the loop. As of August 2026 the largest chemistry VQE on hardware used 12 qubits — and computed classically trivial Hartree–Fock; no published VQE run beats strong classical methods (CCSD(T), DMRG) on the same molecule. Noise, barren plateaus and the measurement bill are the three measured brakes.

As of August 2026 the honest list is short. Exactly one advantage theorem holds with no assumptions at all (shallow circuits — a constant-depth separation, not a runtime win). A few speedups are proven inside restricted query models, led by Grover's quadratic, which is provably optimal. The famous exponential ones — Shor above all — are conditional: the quantum runtime is proven, the classical hardness is conjecture. Of the 450+ entries in the Quantum Algorithm Zoo, most claims are asymptotic, conditional, or already dequantized. Measured end-to-end advantage on a useful problem against a strong classical baseline: still zero.

A bit is one of two definite states. A qubit is two complex amplitudes — and when you measure it, you get one ordinary bit back, probabilistically. A quantum computer does not try every answer in parallel: it choreographs amplitudes so that wrong answers cancel out (interference), which is why only some problem classes get a speedup. As of August 2026, the physical machine is a chip near 25 millikelvin or a row of trapped ions, and one 'run' means executing your circuit thousands of times and reading a histogram.

No — as of August 2026, no quantum computer has beaten a strong classical Monte Carlo engine on a real risk workload (VaR, CVaR, greeks) on the same instance. The quadratic speedup from quantum amplitude estimation is real mathematics, proven on paper since 2015. But published resource estimates put the crossover at ~8,000 logical qubits running at tens of MHz of logical clock — hardware that does not exist — and a quadratic speedup is exactly the kind that error-correction overhead eats first. Every hardware demo so far is component-scale: 5 qubits for VaR, 3 for option pricing, 64 for data loading.

As of August 2026, no honest answer to this question is a date. Timing is set by the problem class you own, not by your industry label or any vendor's calendar. Three of the four major classes have no measured crossover; the one class with a real deadline is cryptography, where NIST has already scheduled the retirement of today's public-key algorithms — deprecated after 2030, disallowed after 2035 — regardless of when the hardware arrives. The rational posture is not a date. It is a monitoring discipline that costs almost nothing.

As of August 2026 there is no vendor-neutral single number for comparing quantum computers. Every headline metric was defined by a vendor and rewards its own architecture: Quantum Volume (defined by IBM in 2019, retired by IBM as its headline metric in 2023, record held by Quantinuum at 2^25 since September 2025), Algorithmic Qubits (defined by IonQ, at #AQ 64 since September 2025, publicly disputed by Quantinuum in March 2024), and qubit count and CLOPS (both led by IBM). Three vendors hold four different crowns under four different rulers, and no published conversion exists between them. Read every single-number claim as a choice of framing, not a ranking.

Dequantization is when a claimed exponential quantum speedup gets matched — up to polynomial factors — by a classical algorithm given the same data access. Since Ewin Tang's 2018 result, it has taken down the exponential claims of quantum recommendation systems, quantum PCA, nearest-centroid clustering, low-rank linear systems, and low-rank SDP/SVM solvers. Shor's factoring, sparse HHL, and Hamiltonian dynamics still stand: they are BQP-complete or unmatched after decades. Status as of: August 2026.

As of August 2026 you can reach a defensible go/no-go on most quantum pilot candidates before paying for a single second of QPU time. Measure a strong classical baseline first (free), then run the quantum candidate on a noise-free simulator (≈$0 to $4.50/hour) — that run is the candidate's best case, because real hardware only adds noise. Hardware spend ($80 to $8,000+ per experiment) is the last gate of a pilot, not the first.

2025 was a record year under every count — $12.6B into quantum-technology startups (McKinsey, 6.3× 2024) or $4.9B of private VC (QED-C); the tallies differ because their scopes do. What no source publishes is a clean hardware/software split for 2025. The observable proxies all point one way: the year's three largest rounds — PsiQuantum $1B, Quantinuum $600M, IQM $300M+ — are hardware; the largest quantum-software round in history (Classiq, May 2025) is $110M, about a ninth of PsiQuantum's single check.

No — not against a serious classical router. As of August 2026, classical solvers (OR-Tools, Hexaly, LKH) close 1,000-customer capacitated routing to under 1% of optimum in about a minute. The largest vehicle-routing instance ever run on gate-based quantum hardware is 3 nodes; a 4-node run took over 4 hours and returned an infeasible route. The smallest instance in the standard CVRPLIB benchmark needs 5,305+ logical qubits just to encode. Every published quantum-annealing 'logistics case study' that reports good routes is hybrid — a classical solver does the routing. No result beats a strong classical baseline on the same instance.

QAOA (2014) is a hybrid quantum-classical algorithm that approximates solutions to combinatorial optimization problems with a shallow, tunable circuit. As of August 2026 it is a research instrument, not a production optimizer: no published QAOA run beats a strong classical solver on the same instance at practical scale, and the strongest evidence in its favor is a noiseless-simulation scaling study in which bare QAOA still trails the best classical heuristic (1.46^N vs 1.34^N).

A quantum benchmark means nothing on its own — it only means something relative to the classical method it is measured against. Put a weak, under-tuned, or wrong-class classical baseline on the other side and the quantum result 'wins' for free: the crossover point slides toward the quantum side by construction, not by physics. Every reversed 'quantum advantage' claim so far — IBM's 2023 utility run, D-Wave's 2025 spin-glass claim, a decade of quantum-ML speedups — failed the same way: a strong classical baseline showed up late. State as of July 2026.

The crossover point is the problem size N* at which a quantum method's better asymptotic scaling finally overtakes the best classical method — despite quantum's enormous constant-factor overhead. Below N*, classical wins; above it, quantum wins. It is the single number that decides whether a speedup is real or academic, and almost no one publishes it with evidence. For a few problems it is estimated on paper (factoring RSA-2048: under a million noisy qubits, Gidney 2025; a 100-site fault-tolerant spin simulation: ~2h quantum vs ~100y classical, arXiv 2607.16116, July 2026). For the optimization problems most businesses care about, no crossover has been measured at all — including in our own 20 sealed portfolio runs.

Not the way headlines imply. As of July 2026 no quantum advantage in drug discovery has been demonstrated at useful scale. The credible near-term contribution is narrow — simulating the electronic structure of strongly-correlated molecules that classical methods approximate poorly — and even that runs inside a classical pipeline led by AlphaFold and industrial docking. Money is pouring in ($12.6B into quantum startups in 2025), demos are real (a virus genome encoded on IBM hardware; hybrid simulations of protein complexes over 12,000 atoms), but no standardized head-to-head benchmark against the strongest classical tools exists yet. We tested a nearby task ourselves — 19 sealed runs on allosteric-site ranking — and under an honest null, nothing was significant.

Supremacy means a quantum computer does something a classical computer practically can't — on any task, useful or not. Advantage, in its strict sense, means it beats the best classical method on a task someone actually cares about. The field swaps the words constantly, which is why every headline 'supremacy' claim so far has either been narrowed by a better classical algorithm or turned out to be a physics demo with no business use. As of July 2026, no one has shown a durable advantage on a useful, industry-relevant problem — which is exactly the gap Rosetta measures.

As of July 2026, running one job on a public QPU is cheap — a $0.30 task fee plus per-shot rates from $0.000425 (Rigetti) to $0.08 (IonQ Forte) on Amazon Braket. A real workload is not one job. A modest 100-iteration variational loop at 1,000 shots costs about $73 on the cheapest device and about $8,030 on the most expensive — the identical computation, ~110× apart. Per-shot price is not cost-per-answer: error mitigation multiplies shots, and IBM ($96/min) and Quantinuum bill by wall-clock or opaque credits, not shots.

Allosteric-site predictions are scored by asking whether the true residues rank better than chance — and 'chance' is almost always modelled as independent residues drawn at random. But a real allosteric site is ONE contiguous pocket: its residues are spatially correlated, so the effective sample size is far smaller than the residue count, and every test assuming independence inflates significance. We built the correct null — permute contiguous distal pockets of matched size, 2,000 permutations — and applied it to our own CTQW method first. Apparent z-scores of up to |4.64| collapse to |z| < 1.2. Under the honest null nothing is significant: not our quantum walk, not diffusion, not GNM, ANM, betweenness or closeness, on any of the three targets, with every p between 0.15 and 0.85. The paired test across the full 18-config grid gives zero cells at p < 0.05 on all three targets. Sealed as EXP-0007-017. We are publishing the instrument, not a score — and the instrument's first verdict goes against us.

We pointed the same Judge v1 protocol at a new problem class — distribution grid expansion, the E.ON challenge track. On a stressed IEEE case14 feeder with real congestion, a build/no-build QUBO (congestion relief measured by actual DC power flow) was fought QAOA p=2 vs OR-Tools CP-SAT. CP-SAT hit the proven optimum in ~0.3 s; QAOA landed 0.005–3.2% away across 3 seeds. Verdict: not yet. The winning plan, validated in full AC power flow, cut real line overload by 43.5%. Sealed as RQ-0033 / EXP-0033-001…003. Nothing about the protocol changed — only the problem.

Twelve new sealed runs: 8 seeds now at n=12 and n=16, and the first four at n=20 (where gradient-based optimization hit a memory wall and the protocol switched to gradient-free COBYLA — recorded in each archive). Mean QAOA gaps: 48.2%±22.5 at n=12, 25.1%±11.1 at n=16, 41.1%±14.1 at n=20 — non-monotonic, no clean size trend. CP-SAT: proven optimum in all 20 runs to date, but its proof time grew from 0.05 s (n=12) to ~29 s (n=20). Verdict, all sizes: not yet.

The Evidence Ledger now holds its first real, measured verdict. Recipe RQ-0012 (portfolio optimization, QAOA p=2 vs CP-SAT): NOT YET — classical reached the proven exact optimum in all 20 sealed runs at n=12/16/20; no crossover observed, no defensible size trend. Sealed as V-0012 (sha256:f510eff6…6636), backed by 20 run archives in verified triple copy. The demo entry it replaces is gone; the counter reads 1 verdict published, honestly.

Every Rosetta run executes one instance twice: once on a quantum algorithm, once on an industrial classical solver, under identical budgets. Today the quantum side runs on statevector simulators (CPU, cloud Linux); the classical side runs OR-Tools CP-SAT on the same machine. Real QPUs via cloud providers enter the ladder later — simulation first is a deliberate methodological choice, not a limitation we hide.

The security migration is not hypothetical: NIST finalized the post-quantum standards (FIPS 203/204/205) in August 2024, NSA's CNSA 2.0 mandates PQC for new national security systems from 2027, and NIST IR 8547 deprecates RSA-2048/ECC by 2030 and removes them by 2035. Expert surveys put a cryptographically relevant quantum computer in a 2033–2037 central window. The 'harvest now, decrypt later' exposure applies to data encrypted today. Optimization advantage — what we benchmark — is a separate, harder question.

Private quantum investment peaked in 2021, contracted ~40% into 2023, and then broke every record: $4.9B of VC in 2025 — more than double 2024 — anchored by PsiQuantum's $1B Series E at a $7B valuation, the largest private quantum round in history. Capital remains heavily concentrated in hardware; software's share is small by every count, though sources disagree on exactly how small. That disagreement is itself a finding: the field lacks a shared measurement standard for its own money.

We ran our first real fight: QAOA (quantum, simulated) vs OR-Tools CP-SAT (classical) on the same 12-asset portfolio instance, same time budget, fixed seed. CP-SAT reached the exact optimum in 0.113 s; QAOA landed 42.8% away in 45 s. Verdict: not yet — exactly as theory predicts at this scale. The run is sealed with a SHA-256 hash and archived in triplicate. This is entry 001 of the catalog.

Same fight, bigger instance: QAOA p=2 vs OR-Tools CP-SAT on a 16-asset portfolio, same Judge v1 protocol, seed 42. CP-SAT again reached the exact optimum (1.0 s); QAOA landed 20.7% away in 97.5 s. Verdict: not yet. The gap is smaller than at 12 assets (42.8%) — and we are explicitly NOT calling that a trend: one seed per size proves nothing. Sealed as EXP-0012-002.

We ran 3 new seeds per size. At n=12 the QAOA gap spans 23.4%–53.7% (mean ≈40.9%); at n=16 it spans 20.7%–42.3% (mean ≈28.8%). The ranges overlap: run 002's apparent 'gap shrinks with size' does not survive measurement. Classical CP-SAT hit the proven optimum in every one of the 8 runs to date. Verdict, all runs: not yet. Six sealed archives, EXP-0012-003 through -008.