How would you experimentally distinguish the postselection repulsion from classical measurement artifacts or systematic errors?

This is a thoughtful technical question, but the archive doesn't contain work directly addressing "postselection repulsion" as a phenomenon or how to distinguish it from measurement artifacts.

The closest relevant material concerns measurement disturbance and artifacts more broadly: [AG-2024.05-2203] proposes methods to evaluate quantum measurement disturbance rigorously, [AG-2024.07-2141] shows how mismatches between actual and assumed measurement operators introduce reconstruction artifacts that can be detected and quantified, and [AG-2024.07-2308] discusses how implementation procedures (like binarizing multi-outcome measurements) can create loopholes that artificially inflate or distort quantum signatures.

If "postselection repulsion" refers to apparent forces or effects arising from post-selecting measurement outcomes (a phenomenon explored in some weak-value and quantum-interrogation contexts [AG-2024.07-1582, AG-2024.07-2009]), the experimental strategy suggested by these papers would be:

1. Directly characterize your measurement apparatus using device-agnostic tomography [AG-2024.07-2141] to rule out unmodeled systematic errors in detectors or state preparation.

2. Evaluate the disturbance introduced by post-selection itself using the QRMS disturbance circuit [AG-2024.05-2203], which decouples genuine measurement back-action from classical noise.

3. Test predictions under controlled variations in post-selection strength, detector efficiency, and dark-count rates [AG-2026.01-812] to see whether the effect scales with quantum properties or with classical nuisance parameters.

To give you a sharper answer, could you clarify whether "postselection repulsion" refers to a specific effect in weak measurements, cavity quantum electrodynamics, or another domain?