Cross-Platform MOC

Curated map of Zoo entries in the Cross-Platform family.

Entries

Entry	Type	Status
quantum-gate	concept	demonstrated
bacon-shor-code	encoding	demonstrated
color-code-logical-qubit	encoding	demonstrated
erasure-qubit	encoding	demonstrated
floquet-codes	encoding	proposed
qldpc-codes	encoding	proposed
surface-code-logical-qubit	encoding	demonstrated
classical-control	infrastructure	demonstrated
quantum-transduction	infrastructure	demonstrated
nuclear-magnetic-resonance-qubit	qubit	demonstrated

Composition

• concept: 1
• encoding: 6
• infrastructure: 2
• qubit: 1

Conceptual anchors

• codes-moc is the authoritative map when the comparison is about check structure, measurement schedule, or code-family identity; this page takes over when those choices become hardware-wide overhead and systems questions.
• threshold-theorem is the main bridge from surface-code-logical-qubit and color-code-logical-qubit back to hardware performance targets.
• erasure-error-vs-pauli-error separates erasure-qubit from the ordinary stabilizer-code story and explains why flagged loss can change the overhead regime.
• noise-bias-and-asymmetric-error-channels is the complementary lens when the win comes from skewed Pauli channels rather than explicit erasure detection.
• divincenzo-criteria explains why classical-control and quantum-transduction belong here even though they are not qubits.

Architecture stack

• quantum-gate is the operation layer: it stays abstract on purpose so the same gate idea can descend either into physical pulse stacks or into encoded logical actions.
• surface-code-logical-qubit and color-code-logical-qubit are the geometry-and-decoder layer: both answer the threshold problem, but with different overhead, layout, and gate-transversality tradeoffs.
• bacon-shor-code, floquet-codes, and qldpc-codes are the check-structure layer: they move complexity respectively into gauge redundancy, time-ordered measurements, or sparse nonlocal connectivity. Their code-level comparison belongs in codes-moc; their control, connectivity, and decoder consequences belong here.
• erasure-qubit is the noise-model layer: it does not replace a code family so much as change the decoder assumptions under which the other logical encodings should be judged.
• classical-control and quantum-transduction are the systems layer: one closes the real-time local feedback loop, the other opens the nonlocal modular-network loop.

Family structure

• surface-code-logical-qubit and color-code-logical-qubit are logical overlays on top of many hardware platforms, so they should point outward to code and threshold concepts rather than read like standalone modalities.
• erasure-qubit is a noise-engineering pattern that can be instantiated in multiple families, not a single device recipe.
• classical-control and quantum-transduction are scaling interfaces: one connects algorithms to physical waveforms, the other connects local processors to networked photonic links.
• quantum-gate should stay as the operation-level abstraction that ties these layers together, not become a dumping ground for platform-specific pulse details.

Routing rule: when to enter this family

• Enter here when the main comparison is decoder assumptions, logical-overhead scaling, or systems integration rather than device physics.
• Stay in a source hardware family when the central claim is hardware-shaped noise, then cross over here only after the error model is clear. In practice that means reading kerr-cat-qubit, 0-pi-qubit, or dual-rail-superconducting-qubit through noise-bias-and-asymmetric-error-channels or erasure-error-vs-pauli-error before collapsing them into surface-code-logical-qubit, color-code-logical-qubit, or erasure-qubit.
• Photonic notes should usually enter this family through erasure-qubit: stay in photonic-moc while the question is encoding choice (dual-rail-photonic-qubit, time-bin-photonic-qubit) or resource construction (linear-optical-photonic-qubit, photonic-cluster-state-mbqc-qubit, fusion-based-photonic-qubit), then cross here only once flagged loss or fusion failure becomes a decoder-overhead question.
• Use classical-control and quantum-transduction as the two stack edges: one asks whether local feedback can keep up with the code cycle, the other asks whether the logical architecture survives once the machine becomes modular.

Boundary with the Codes MOC

• Stay in codes-moc while the live question is which stabilizers, gauge operators, or measurement schedule define the code.
• Cross here when the live question becomes what that code demands from a physical machine: local-feedback latency for Bacon-Shor or Floquet cycles, long-range connectivity for qLDPC checks, or decoder assumptions for erasure-aware logical qubits.
• surface-code-logical-qubit, color-code-logical-qubit, and erasure-qubit intentionally appear in both facets. In codes-moc they are code/noise-model families; here they are portable architectural overlays used to compare otherwise unrelated hardware modalities.

Scope boundary

This facet covers architectural glue: platform-local implementation details remain in their physical-platform maps, while this page identifies concepts that travel across platforms.