Decoding and syndrome-extraction boundaries

For a CSS face matrix H, a Z-error support e_Z produces X-check syndrome s_X=H e_Z^T; an X error produces the identical formula in the other sector because H_X=H_Z. The symmetry of the static matrix does not make all decoders or extraction circuits identical.

The seven-qubit static syndrome table

For the distance-three patch, the three face rows are

{0,1,2,3}, {1,2,4,5}, and {2,3,5,6}.

A single Z error therefore produces:

qubitX-check syndrome (f0 f1 f2)
0100
1110
2111
3101
4010
5011
6001

All seven nonzero three-bit syndromes occur once. This is the Hamming-code view of the smallest patch. The same table diagnoses single X errors after exchanging check sectors. For larger patches, bulk qubits touch three faces while boundary qubits touch fewer; syndromes no longer form a single finite lookup table that scales with d.

Why color-code matching is not three independent matchings

A bulk error creates defects in three colored sectors at once. Treating each sector as statistically independent throws away the fact that they share one physical cause. The random-three-body Ising mapping of Katzgraber, Bombín, and Martín-Delgado keeps the joint constraint at the maximum-likelihood level, but a statistical partition function is not automatically an efficient decoder implementation.

Delfosse's projection decoder maps color-pair restrictions into surface-code problems. Matching those projected defects is an intermediate step. The results must be lifted to one physical color-code correction whose full syndrome is correct. On a triangular patch, boundary connected components enter both projection and lifting; reusing a closed-surface rule can create a correction with the wrong boundary class.

Sahay and Brown instead combine the three boundary sectors in a matching graph embedded on a Möbius strip. The nonorientable seam is bookkeeping for how a path changes color sector when it crosses the folded boundary. It is not a claim that the physical qubits live on a Möbius strip.

The idealized hexagonal-versus-square-octagonal comparison of Ohzeki and the faulty-syndrome spacetime gauge model of Andrist et al. belong to different statistical ensembles. Their estimates cannot be merged merely because both papers use color-code language.

Repeated extraction changes the data type

A static syndrome is one bit per face check. A repeated circuit produces a time history of noisy outcomes. A detector is typically a parity between outcomes whose ideal value should agree, possibly combined with flag or ancilla information. One circuit fault may create several correlated detectors and data errors.

Consequently a circuit-level decoder must retain:

  1. the exact check-measurement schedule and boundary rounds;
  2. data, ancilla, reset, gate, idle, and measurement fault locations;
  3. how raw outcomes and flags become detectors;
  4. correlations between detector events and final data observables;
  5. the decoder graph or hypergraph and its weights;
  6. the Pauli-frame convention; and
  7. the declared logical failure event.

Flag circuits in Chamberland et al., superdense and middle-out circuits in Gidney and Jones, and detector-based matching in Lee, Li, and Bartlett therefore define different inference problems even when their final stabilizer group is the same.

Threshold identity tuple

Before a threshold-like number can appear, record all of:

fieldrequired identity
familytiling, finite boundary, and scaled instances
observablefitted logical failure quantity and scaling variable
extractionideal syndrome, phenomenological rounds, or named circuit
noisechannel, locations, correlations, and probability normalization
decoderalgorithm, lifting/reconciliation, postprocessing, and version
sourcefigure/table/section and fit procedure
claim typethreshold, pseudo-threshold, one-point rate, bound, or hardware result

The 2026-08-02 decoder sweep found several legitimate but incompatible models. T102 introduces no threshold number because no single tuple belongs to the bare check matrix. This is a positive epistemic decision: omitting a number prevents a code-capacity transition, a faulty-syndrome result, and a hardware scaling observation from being rendered as estimates of one quantity.