What does this equation mean?

The reply cannot be a difference in the redundancy number, since by construction the two numbers can be made to agree. It must be a difference in what redundancy costs the source. The classical sensors read a fixed value without disturbing it, so an observer could add a thousand-and-first fragment for free. The quantum construction cannot make that promise: every additional fragment is drawn from a probe that has already interacted with the rotor through $U_n$ , and the paper’s own back-action results predict that competence gained by later fragments should trade against residual orientation asymmetry in the source [ 4 , 3 ] . A classical emulator has no such cost curve to reproduce; its marginal fragment statistics can be copied indefinitely at zero disturbance to the source. This proposes an additional falsifier alongside the frame-covariance test: at every parameter point where $R_{\epsilon,\delta}$ is reported, the calculation must also check whether a non-disturbing classical channel matched to the same fragment marginals reproduces it. Wherever one does, and the rotor shows no measurable degradation as M grows, the reported number is describing an already-classical broadcast rather than a quantum frame becoming one, and should be labeled accordingly rather than counted toward the paper’s central claim.