Quantum computing: implementation evidence

← Return to the implementation matrix

Quantum computers implement circuit, measurement, annealing, and related models with controlled quantum systems. The mature implementation stack is distinct from the unresolved claim of useful general advantage.

Stage Mark Summary
Reference Mature simulators, languages, and SDKs
Physical Several physical qubit modalities
Integrated Qubits, control, calibration, readout, and software
Scaled Multi-qubit and multi-system facilities
Access Cloud-accessible processors
Operational Recurring service and pilots, not established broad advantage

Reference — demonstrated

Claim
The matrix credits quantum computing at the Reference stage: mature simulators, languages, and SDKs.
Evidence
Quantum circuits and other models have executable simulators, programming languages, compilers, and resource estimators. A program can therefore be specified and criticized independently of a particular qubit technology.
Criticism
Executable semantics do not establish purpose-built hardware, integration, scale, external access, recurring use, or comparative advantage.
Sources
IBM: A Decade of Quantum on the Cloud

Physical — demonstrated

Claim
The matrix credits quantum computing at the Physical stage: several physical qubit modalities.
Evidence
Superconducting circuits, trapped ions, neutral atoms, photons, and annealing devices all physically implement quantum operations. The mark does not imply fault tolerance.
Criticism
A physical realization does not by itself establish system integration, efficient scaling, external access, recurring use, or comparative advantage.
Sources
IBM: A Decade of Quantum on the Cloud

Integrated — demonstrated

Claim
The matrix credits quantum computing at the Integrated stage: qubits, control, calibration, readout, and software.
Evidence
Public systems integrate qubits with control electronics, calibration, compilation, scheduling, and measurement. Most useful workflows still depend heavily on classical computers; that dependence is part of the present architecture.
Criticism
A coherent system does not by itself establish efficient scaling, external access, recurring use, or comparative advantage.
Sources
IBM: A Decade of Quantum on the Cloud

Scaled — demonstrated

Claim
The matrix credits quantum computing at the Scaled stage: multi-qubit and multi-system facilities.
Evidence
Systems contain many physical qubits and operate through shared control and service infrastructure. This is implementation scale, not the logical-qubit scale required for large fault-tolerant algorithms.
Criticism
Composition at the reported scale does not establish useful scaling across workloads, favorable economics, or comparative advantage.
Sources
IBM: A Decade of Quantum on the Cloud

Access — demonstrated

Claim
The matrix credits quantum computing at the Access stage: cloud-accessible processors.
Evidence
IBM has exposed quantum processors through the cloud since 2016, allowing outsiders to submit circuits to physical machines. Access is therefore direct even though queues, quotas, and device selection constrain it.
Criticism
Access does not establish broad availability, recurring use, workload generality, or comparative advantage.
Sources
IBM: A Decade of Quantum on the Cloud

Operational — limited

Claim
The matrix credits quantum computing only partially at the Operational stage: recurring service and pilots, not established broad advantage.
Evidence
Cloud processors and organizational pilots perform recurring work beyond one-off laboratory demonstrations. The mark remains partial because reproducible application advantage—including error correction and classical orchestration costs—has not become routine.
Criticism
The mark is limited on the current public record: recurring service and pilots, not established broad advantage. Recurring work does not establish workload generality, independent reproduction, favorable economics, or comparative advantage.
Sources
IBM: A Decade of Quantum on the Cloud

Source