Can quantum systems maintain their superposition advantage if measurements become less incompatible?

Yes—but it's more subtle than you might expect. The relationship between measurement incompatibility and quantum advantage depends on *what kind* of advantage you're after.

Measurement incompatibility occurs when you cannot simultaneously measure two observables with perfect precision—a hallmark of quantum mechanics. You might think that reducing this incompatibility (making measurements "easier" to perform jointly) would erode quantum advantages, but the reality is more textured.

The Necessary-But-Not-Sufficient Picture

The key insight comes from nonlocality experiments. In the simplest Bell scenarios with two measurements per observer, incompatibility is *both* necessary and sufficient to reveal nonlocal correlations [AG-2024.06-2190]. However, when an observer performs three or more measurements, incompatibility becomes necessary but *not sufficient*—you need an additional constraint, namely a form of contextuality (the idea that measurement outcomes depend on what other measurements you could have performed) [AG-2024.06-2190]. This means you can have incompatible measurements that still fail to manifest quantum advantage in certain contexts.

Trading Incompatibility for Noise

There's another wrinkle: some quantum advantages can actually be *preserved or recovered* as you relax incompatibility, if you're willing to tolerate noise. In cavity quantum electrodynamics, when a qubit couples to light being continuously monitored, you can tune the measurement scheme to produce pairs of observables that are jointly measurable *if* you accept some measurement noise (biased outcomes) [AG-2024.06-2056]. The observables remain useful for quantum information processing even though they're no longer fully incompatible.

Similarly, imperfect measurements—where the measurement apparatus doesn't perfectly copy the observable into the environment—can still maintain certain quantum features, including approximate decoherence of conjugate variables [AG-2024.01-606].

Implementation Reality

In practice, how you *implement* measurements matters enormously. When high-dimensional quantum correlation experiments try to approximate multi-outcome measurements using many binary (yes/no) measurements, the resulting "binarised" data can lose a sizable fraction of the quantum advantage—even though the underlying measurements remain incompatible [AG-2024.07-2308]. This shows that incompatibility alone doesn't guarantee preserved advantage; the experimental realization counts.

The Bottom Line

Quantum superposition advantage doesn't vanish simply because measurements become less incompatible—it depends on your specific application (Bell tests, steering, prepare-and-measure), the dimension of your system, and how you implement the measurements. Incompatibility is a necessary ingredient in many quantum protocols, but it's not a direct lever on advantage itself; contextuality, noise tolerance, and implementation fidelity matter just as much [AG-2024.06-2190, AG-2024.07-2308].