From Experimental Records to Wave–Particle Duality Judgments: A Habitat Information Physics Audit of the Experimental Inference Chain

Optical experiments have produced reliable and diverse records of spatial distributions, localized detection, energy exchange, and conditional statistics. This paper accepts those records and does not attribute the predictive success of quantum theory to cognitive error. Its aim is to audit the reasoning chain from experimental conditions, signal conversion, and instrument records to judgments about wave–particle ontology. The method separately defines source state, process action, process signal, observation signal, recorded data, statistical computation, and model interpretation, then revisits selected cases in that order and recalculates parameters from an atomic wave-packet scattering experiment published in 2025. Period analysis begins with the frequency of a specified signal mode and distinguishes carrier period, wave-packet duration, pulse repetition interval, detector time resolution, event interval, quantum-state occupation, and an observer’s temporal integration. The case audits show that localized clicks and accumulated interference distributions constrain different statistical levels; conditional subsamples in path-marking experiments do not replace the unsorted ensemble; and coherent fractions and path information in atomic wave-packet scattering depend on explicit model mappings. The evidence supports a limited conclusion: experimental records alone do not uniquely entail that light switches between two mutually exclusive ontological identities. Moving from model comparison to a universal ontological judgment requires additional argument. This paper does not claim that signal-identification bias caused the historical development of wave–particle duality, nor does it aim to eliminate quantum probability. The Discussion briefly introduces a candidate process picture in which continuous transmission and localized records coexist. Evidence reliability, scope, and limitations are summarized at the end. The paper closes the logic of the experimental inference chain; it does not provide quantitative constitutive closure for the candidate explanation.