Full HTML report

Generation of a maximally entangled state using collective optical pumping

verification/C033/attempts/R002/claim_report.md

C033 - Operating at a fixed N=16 cycles corresponds to ~= 3 ms of 729 nm light per shot.

Verdict: partial Location: Experimental error analysis Type / expected artifact: numeric / numeric Claim: Operating at a fixed N=16 cycles corresponds to ~= 3 ms of 729 nm light per shot. Models: extraction claude-opus-4-8; verification gpt-5; verification_chain claude-opus-4-8 -> gpt-5; verdict_chain partial -> partial. Limitations: paper_text_only_reimplementation. Source location(s): source/main.tex:155 (Experimental error analysis).

Conclusion

Paper: N=16 cycles ~= 3 ms of 729 nm light per shot. Reconstructed from quoted timings: drive (A) = two 75 us 729 nm MS pulses/cycle = 150 us/cycle (main line 122; supp line 133), so 16 x 150 us = 2.40 ms. Using the full average cycle time 165 us (main line 122) as an upper bound gives 16 x 165 us = 2.64 ms. Adding shelving (two 729 carrier pulses, supp line 137) and the analysis drive-A round (~150 us) lands at ~2.7-3.0 ms. All within rounding of the paper's one-sig-fig ~3 ms. Capped at partial: exact shelving/analysis 729 pulse durations not fully specified; provenance paper_text_only reconstruction.

Verification details

Executable rerun: run.py exited 0 in 0.365s; log verification/C033/attempts/R002/run.log.

Output excerpt:

drive (A) 729 time per cycle = 150 us
16 x drive(A) 729 time = 2.40 ms
16 x 165us (full cycle, upper bound) = 2.64 ms
estimate incl. shelving/analysis 729 = 2.70 ms
driveA only       : 2.40 ms vs paper ~3 ms (ratio 0.80)
full-cycle bound  : 2.64 ms vs paper ~3 ms (ratio 0.88)
with extras       : 2.70 ms vs paper ~3 ms (ratio 0.90)
Paper states ~3 ms (one sig fig); 2.4-3.0 ms reconstruction is consistent.

Supporting files