What the worked items and the reported experiment of the examples page establish

The two computations. An ideal flat two-path distribution: exact coherent and which-path bin laws computes, in the declared two-path model with flat product-form amplitudes, the exact coherent and which-path probabilities of the overlap and outer regions of the declared detection coordinate: at relative phase $\pi$ the coherent law assigns probability zero to the whole overlap region while the balanced which-path law assigns it positive probability, and a slab bin $B_1\times {\mathbb{R}}^2$ has positive coherent probability at that phase exactly when $\mathrm{\mid }{B}_1\cap (I_1\mathrm{△}{I}_2)\mathrm{\mid }>0$, where $I_1,I_2$ are the declared intervals and $I_1\mathrm{△}{I}_2$ is their symmetric difference (the two outer regions). Mere nonempty intersection does not suffice. A declared finite phase-averaging model reproduces the which-path law for orthogonal components shows that for orthogonal path components a declared ensemble whose relative phase is uniformly distributed over the finitely many $n$-th roots of unity has the which-path law with the norm weights as its averaged law. Both are conditional computations in the declared model under all the stated supplier hypotheses, including Countable Choice and Choice, and the pair's detection laws (Coherent and which-path detection laws of the declared two-path model); neither is a dynamics, an environmental decoherence model, a detector response or a statement about an apparatus.

The reported experiment. Reported controlled double-slit electron diffraction with single-electron detection (Bach, Pope, Liou and Batelaan) reports the primary preprint of Bach, Pope, Liou and Batelaan: a 600 eV electron beam through a nanofabricated double-slit with slit-selective distributions and a single-electron event build-up over 2, 7, 209, 1004 and 6235 accumulated localized events. The report supplies no calibrated efficiency or background, no numerical localization error, no uncertainty for its apparatus parameters, no occupancy bound and no statistical comparison with a specified competing model; the mask-height inconsistency between its body and its figure caption is recorded as unresolved. The item therefore supports a qualitative operational account only, and its agreement with any model is evidence about the combined model and apparatus assumptions, not a proof of the framework, not a demonstration that every event is independent, and not a demonstration that only one electron is in the apparatus at a time.

What the page does not address. No photon experiment is reported here; a single-photon polarization or counting experiment belongs to the photon and radiation page, and the classical wave comparison for light is a separate declared model. No experiment testing the which-path or marker variants of the arrangement is reported. No claim is made that the finite sample of the reported experiment would distinguish the coherent from the which-path recorded law; A finite sample can fail a criterion that rejects a positive-probability sequence shows that both can fail or pass a finite-sample criterion and that coincident recorded laws are indistinguishable by any criterion.

Evidence status. The page combines exact conditional computations with one faithfully reported experiment. It contains no simulation presented as data, no invented count, precision or significance, and no conclusion about nature; the empirical qualifications of the report are carried in its Observations and Uncertainty sections and are not strengthened here.