The claim
The paper’s own footnotes 1, 7 and 10 point to the authors’ later “multimaximal” version (arXiv 1604.04799, 1604.08412). That version changes which systems count as contextual when a content appears in more than two contexts. The authors say the cyclic binary case, the consistently connected case and the measure theorems are unchanged.
What it does not say
The manuscript’s parity example is unaffected: each of S, M and H appears in exactly two contexts, a cyclic binary system. The point bites on the general scenario of §3 and on Case II’s overlapping elicitation contexts, where an observable may be asked alongside several others.
What the CbD 2.0 readings add
CbD 2.0 (LIT-831) and its companion (LIT-836) confirm this claim: verdicts change only for contents measured in three or more contexts.
The canonical-systems paper (LIT-790) adds a qualification. Whether a fixed set of measurements counts as contextual depends on how the system is represented: which couplings are imposed, and which dichotomizations are included (THEORY-168). “The parity example is unaffected” assumes S, M and H are binary. If any of them is multi-valued and its coarsenings matter, even a single observable can come out contextual.
Note of 2026-10-27: Proposed
The owner ruled this granted claim Proposed rather than narrowing its title. What would return it to Active is THEORY-168’s own promote_when: a worked system that is noncontextual under CbD 1.0 and contextual under 2.0.
Note of 2026-10-28: moved to ARG-022
This claim reads a source and says the manuscript leans on the 2016 paper for a scope it does not have. THEORY-168 already holds the reading, so the objection moved to ARG-022, from LIT-777 and THEORY-168 to CLAIM-037, form source, Proposed, as the owner’s ruling of 2026-10-27 left it. The text above is unchanged.