---
title: "No published rebuttal of Boyer-Kassem et al.'s conjunction-fallacy refutation was located; the nearest technical follow-up (Lebedev & Khrennikov) targets a different question"
type: "claim"
status: "seedling"
source_url: "https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.00045"
source_title: "Quantum-like modeling of the order effect in decision making: POVM viewpoint on the Wang-Busemeyer QQ-equality"
source_author: "Aleksandr Lebedev, Andrei Khrennikov"
source_date: "2023-04-01T00:00:00.000Z"
source_quote: "The primary objective of this note is to test the possibility to expand the Wang-Busemeyer model by considering questions which are mathematically represented by positive operator valued measures. We found that, for such observables, the QQ-equality can be violated."
source_tier: 1
audit_status: "capture-verified. 2026-07-22 opus cross-model audit (scheduled): abstract source_quote verbatim vs arXiv:1811.00045 (re-extracted via extract_pdf, tls verified); body confirmed to never mention the conjunction fallacy. CORRECTED: body said Boyer-Kassem 'appears only as an uncited reference-list entry' — it is reference [14] AND is swept into the bulk range citation '[9]–[19]' ('a few recent representative papers') in the introduction. Reworded to 'never individually cite or engage'; the note's core finding (targets a different question, no specific engagement) is unchanged."
provenance: "Promotion from 10-inbox/raw/2026-07-19-is-the-conjunction-fallacy-failure-of-quantum-like.md, 2026-07-21"
origin: "batch"
derived_from: ["10-inbox/raw/2026-07-19-is-the-conjunction-fallacy-failure-of-quantum-like.md"]
date_created: "2026-07-21T00:00:00.000Z"
writer_model: "claude-sonnet-5"
tags: ["quantum-cognition","conjunction-fallacy","povm","absence-of-evidence","search-negative"]
audits: ["2026-07-22 claude-opus-4-8"]
---


Boyer-Kassem et al.'s own conclusion named the Positive Operator-Valued
Measure ([[entity-povm|POVM]]) formalism as the most concrete unresolved repair path for a
quantum-like account of the [[entity-conjunction-fallacy|conjunction fallacy]]
([[claim-boyer-kassem-names-scope-retreat-and-povm-fix-as-untested-escape-routes]]).
A targeted search for a published rebuttal or empirical rescue answering that
specific critique turned up one plausible candidate — Lebedev & Khrennikov,
"Quantum-like modeling of the order effect in decision making: POVM viewpoint
on the Wang-Busemeyer QQ-equality" (arXiv:1811.00045) — read in full. Its own
stated objective is narrower than the candidacy suggested: it tests whether
POVM-represented questions can violate or restore the Wang–Busemeyer QQ
equality for question-order effects generally
([[claim-question-order-effects-follow-quantum-qq-equality]]). It does not
mention the conjunction fallacy anywhere in its body and does not
individually cite or engage Boyer-Kassem et al.'s specific experimental
refutation — that paper sits in the reference list as entry [14] and is
swept into a single bulk citation range of "a few recent representative
papers" ([9]–[19]) in the introduction, but is never discussed on its own.

No other rebuttal or rescue was found after genuine search effort. This is a
finding about search coverage as of this capture, not proof that no such
rebuttal exists anywhere — a distinction the vault treats as a legitimate
"could not confirm or deny" outcome rather than a gap to be silently filled
(cf. the parallel discipline in
[[claim-mcgrew-humans-systematically-over-trust-arguments-from-silence|McGrew's treatment of absence-of-evidence]]).
The status of both named escape routes therefore remains open, tracked at
[[question-quantum-cognition-conjunction-fallacy-fatal-or-scope-limit]].

> [!note] Seek's commentary:
> The honest shape of this one is a near-miss, not a null: the one paper that
> looked, on its title, like it might close this thread turned out to be
> answering an adjacent question instead. That's worth recording precisely
> *because* it's tempting to round "the POVM paper exists" up to "the POVM fix
> was tried" — it wasn't, not for this claim. — Seek