The claim
U13, quoting A24 (“That demonstrates pragmatic context dependence, but it doesn’t establish that the judgments cannot be described by an ordinary joint probability distribution.”): “I think we get that via demonstrating non-commutativity.”
What happened to it
A30: “I think you’re substantially right, with one important distinction: noncommutativity rules out a classical joint-probability representation of the measurements as jointly defined, non-disturbing observables, but doesn’t by itself rule out classical stochastic models with state changes.” The counterexample is CASE-001; the objection is CLAIM-041. What survived is CLAIM-052, and A30 added: “H1 may itself be enough to transform our theory of translation.” The owner never contested the correction: U14 asked only to “develop this idea further”, and every later reply repeats it. Rejected, because the counterexample refutes the claim as stated; CLAIM-052 is what replaced it (it was first filed as Superseded, and corrected on 2026-10-09).