CHICAGO — Updated comparisons give a mixed assessment of Measurement Quantization’s two proposed expansion-rate realizations. The current conditional MQ values are 68.259 ± 0.019 and 73.508 ± 0.020 kilometres per second per megaparsec. Newer CMB results place more pressure on the lower value than the comparisons emphasized in the original 2025 paper.

The specified SPT-3G D1 analysis gives 66.66 ± 0.60, while its combined South Pole Telescope, Atacama Cosmology Telescope and Planck analysis gives 67.19 ± 0.38 in the same units. The 2024 SH0ES result incorporating the Small Magellanic Cloud as a fourth geometric anchor gives 73.17 ± 0.86. Figure 1 keeps the observational inferences and MQ model values distinct.

A transparent Gaussian diagnostic combines each displayed observational uncertainty with the corresponding quoted MQ input uncertainty, assuming zero cross-covariance for that calculation. It gives differences of about 2.66 standard deviations for SPT-3G D1, 2.81 for the combined CMB result and 0.39 for the four-anchor distance ladder. The source review’s SPT figure of about 2.67 is reproduced to rounding level; the Brief states the precise convention used here.

The MQ branch separation is 5.249 kilometres per second per megaparsec, compared with 5.980 for the SH0ES-minus-combined-CMB pair. Their difference is about 0.78 times the observational uncertainty of that separation under an independent-input approximation. This is a restricted difference diagnostic. A close separation does not establish agreement of both absolute rates, and it is not an additional independent success.

The two MQ rates share the same coefficient, reconstructed age and temporal-normalization premise. Their quoted errors exclude unquantified model discrepancy. The SPT-only result also overlaps the combined CMB analysis, so those comparisons cannot be multiplied as independent evidence.

MQ associates the lower and upper model rates with different measurement constructions. The astronomical estimates do not independently identify those frames. Establishing that interpretation requires an observable-level model and a joint analysis that preserves the acoustic, distance and calibration constraints of the contributing datasets.

The companion Brief provides the rate equations, version-specific source references, worked residuals and graphics showing both absolute values and branch separation. The update preserves the less favorable comparisons alongside the closer one, without turning numerical compatibility into a probability that MQ is correct.

# # #