Imagine you're trying to listen to two singers harmonizing in a cathedral, but the cathedral's echo is so loud it drowns out the harmony. You can hear the echo just fine — it's the room's fault, not the singers'. But somewhere far enough from the altar, the echo fades and you finally hear the actual vocal interference pattern. That's the core mechanism here: Coulomb repulsion is the echo, fermionic exchange symmetry is the harmony, and this paper maps exactly where one stops dominating and the other takes over. The committed claim: for two Coulomb-interacting electrons emitted from independent needle-tip sources, a full quantum-mechanical treatment predicts three signatures invisible to semiclassical models — a Coulomb-dominated suppression region, Coulomb-induced phase offsets, and fringe shifts. These are not small corrections. They are qualitatively different features that only appear when you treat the problem with the full machinery of two-particle quantum mechanics. The Hanbury Brown and Twiss (HBT) effect is a workhorse of quantum optics — originally developed for photons to measure stellar diameters, later extended to massive particles. For photons, which are bosons, you get bunching. For electrons, which are fermions, you get antibunching. That much was known. What was not cleanly resolved is what happens when you add Coulomb interaction on top of exchange symmetry for free-space electrons. Previous work used a quantum path formalism that handled the non-interacting case but couldn't capture the Coulomb interplay. This paper builds the full two-electron Hamiltonian, solves it, and shows that the quantum path results emerge as a limiting case when Coulomb is turned off — a clean consistency check. The architecture is analytical quantum mechanics — no variational circuits, no machine learning, no simulation. The authors solve the two-particle Schrödinger equation for Coulomb-interacting electrons emitted from two independent needle-tip emitters, computing spatial correlation functions across the detection plane. The key structural choice is treating the problem in a full quantum-mechanical framework rather than the semiclassical or quantum path formalisms that preceded it. The method leans on the ability to define clean parameter regimes — emitter separation, electron energy, detector geometry — where different physics dominates. On integrity, this is theoretical prediction with internal consistency checks, not experimental verification. The non-interacting limit reproduces prior quantum-path results, which is necessary but not sufficient. There is no experimental data in this paper. The 6 figures across 21 pages map out parameter regimes, showing where Coulomb suppression dominates, where exchange-driven oscillations govern, and where the two compete. The predictions are falsifiable — specific fringe shifts and phase offsets at specific detector positions — but nobody has falsified or confirmed them yet. The validation is self-consistent theory, not independent measurement. The milestone question is the sharpest one. The paper establishes quantitative parameter regimes for disentangling Coulomb from exchange — that is, it tells experimentalists exactly where to point their detectors. The next concrete step is an actual two-electron HBT experiment with needle-tip emitters that confirms or refutes the predicted suppression region and phase offsets. Needle-tip electron emitters exist (field emission sources are mature technology), and two-electron correlation measurements have been done in solid-state contexts. The gap is doing it in free space with the geometry this paper specifies. The obvious successor experiment the authors did not run — because they are theorists — is the physical measurement itself. But there's a subtler gap: extending the framework to more than two electrons. The title says "two-electron" and the formalism is built for exactly two particles. Scaling to N electrons with mutual Coulomb interactions is a qualitatively harder problem (it's the quantum many-body problem). My read: the two-electron case is already a significant enough contribution that extending to N>2 is genuinely the next paper, not something they avoided because it failed. This is (c) — saving it for the sequel, because the two-body result is clean and complete on its own terms.
