With two coherent alternatives available, their amplitude-and-phase description produces an interference contribution. The relative phase determines where the predicted detection density has maxima and minima. Slit geometry, propagation distance, and external potentials affect that phase and therefore the pattern.

The framework distinguishes this distribution from a completed record. Each detector event remains a single realized outcome even when the predictive description extends across the screen. Repeated events under fixed conditions are described by the normalized mapped density.

When path information is available, the measurement context changes. The construction restricts the admissible description so that the coherent cross contribution is not retained in the same way. The source treats that change through contextual restriction and normalization rather than adding a primitive stochastic-collapse process.

These statements recover familiar features of interference within a proposed interpretation. They do not constitute a newly conducted double-slit experiment or a new observation of a particle’s unmeasured trajectory. A successful numerical illustration establishes that the representation produces the expected pattern under its inputs; it does not alone validate the primitive ontology.

The journalistic interest is the relationship between an extended predictive wave and a localized record. The manuscript provides a specific way to separate those roles. A fair assessment should ask which assumptions generate the phase, how the apparatus enters the context, and whether the account has consequences that differ from other quantum descriptions.