Fuchs, C. A., Mermin, N. D. & Schack, R. (2014). American Journal of Physics 82(8):749–754. doi:10.1119/1.4874855. arXiv:1311.5253.
Read in full in NOTE-955, from the arXiv v1 PDF (pages cited are that PDF’s).
Why this is here
The closest prior art to the owner’s wording, and a rival. QBism: “A measurement does not, as the term unfortunately suggests, reveal a pre-existing state of affairs. It is an action on the world by an agent that results in the creation of an outcome — a new experience for that agent. ‘Intervention’ might be a better term” (p. 2, verified in NOTE-955). A measurement that generates its outcome, as U1 has it, but QBism makes that measurement an action on the world. CLAIM-341 has to say why a judgement is not one (its section “Judgement is not action”).
The reading sharpens the contrast in three ways. QBism keeps judgement and measurement apart: a judgement is a state or probability assignment, a measurement is the action that elicits experience, and collapse is “nothing but the updating of an agent’s state assignment on the basis of her experience” (p. 2). Its loop is judgement, action, experience, update, which is the action–perception shape the claim rejects. The outcome it creates is already on the agent’s side, “a new experience”, and the external system is “not changed” by the intervention (p. 7); so the difference from the claim is the route to the outcome, not where it lands. And QBism exempts from its formalism exactly what the claim’s loop runs through: “the only phenomenon accessible to Alice which she does not model with quantum mechanics is her own direct internal awareness of her own private experience” (p. 2).
For QUESTION-121 it treats another agent’s report as a measurement: “When Alice elicits an answer from Bob, she treats this as she treats any other quantum measurement” (p. 3). The report is elicited, which in this paper is an action.