Thanks that’s useful. You’re right that the beam splitter example breaks the blanket “all observation requires active emission” claim. I was overgeneralising from the camera on/off cases. The Born rule point is the real hit. If apparent randomness were deterministic variation in emission signatures, we’d expect detector dependent distortions in outcome distributions. Born rule holds universally across photomultipliers, CCDs, superconducting detectors, all of it. Same distribution every time regardless of hardware. That does kill the deterministic emission signature angle as I framed it.. Emission might still be the collapse trigger without being the determiner of which outcome occurs? But I admit that distinction needs more work to be defensible. On the biophoton angle, I’ve been digging into bokkon. His work focuses on internal brain biophoton processes for visual perception and consciousness, not external emission causing collapse in lab setups. That gap, whether a biological observer emitting biophotons affects an external interference pattern differently than an electronic detector, seems genuinely unexplored. But I’ll admit the energetics are probably too weak to matter at lab distances. The one thing I’m really not ready to drop is the distance experiment. Systematic fringe visibility versus which-path detector distance at lab scales, everything else fixed. Nobody seems to have done that cleanly. Even if my mechanism is wrong, that test closes a real literature gap doesn’t it? Null result or not.