Imagine you're running a warehouse. You have a fixed floor area (constant space) and need to process n packages. The question is: how much extra time does it cost to quality-check every package so nothing gets corrupted in transit? Previous best answers said "roughly log(n) time, plus some annoying little correction factors we can't get rid of." This paper proves the correction factors were never fundamental — pure log(n) is achievable. The committed claim: constant-space-overhead fault-tolerant quantum computation can be done with strictly O(log n) time overhead, eliminating the subpolylogarithmic factors that clung to all prior constructions. This is a complexity-theoretic proof, not a hardware demonstration, but it settles a question the field has been chipping at for years. The overhead taxonomy for fault tolerance — how much extra space and time you pay to protect quantum information — is one of the load-bearing walls of scalable quantum computing theory. The main construction is elegant in its modularity. It uses quantum locally testable codes (qLTCs) — the "good" ones from recent breakthroughs — as dense storage, then shuttles batches of logical qubits into an active workspace where transversal CCZ gates execute universal computation directly. The CCZ gates are the key: because they're implemented transversally (bitwise, no syndrome extraction mid-gate), they don't propagate errors sideways. Only stabilizer resource states need separate distillation, and those are handled by ancillary workspace that gets reused. Think of it as a compute-in-place architecture with a small reusable scratch pad. The second construction takes a different route: it modifies the quantum Reed-Solomon magic-state distillation scheme of Nguyen and Pattison (2025). Here, the trick is recursive — apply a fixed distillation circuit at increasing qLTC block lengths, and the subpolylogarithmic factors that plague earlier schemes get absorbed into the recursion. Two independent constructions reaching the same asymptotic result is a strong signal that O(log n) is the real barrier, not an artifact of one proof technique. On the ladder: the immediate predecessors are Gottesman (2014) for the constant-space-overhead paradigm, Fawzi-Grospellier-Leverrier and Panteleev-Kalachev for good qLDPC/qLTC codes, and Nguyen-Pattison (2025) for the Reed-Solomon distillation approach that one of the constructions modifies. The best prior result achieved O(log n · f(n)) time overhead where f(n) was a subpolylogarithmic function — think log(n) or iterated-log type factors. This paper kills f(n) entirely. It doesn't beat a "baseline" in the empirical sense; it tightens the proven asymptotic bound. Integrity is strong for what this is: a mathematical proof paper. There's no simulation to cherry-pick, no benchmark to game. The result either follows from the construction or it doesn't. The validation regime is internal logical consistency — does the error analysis close, do the code parameters exist, does the overhead accounting check out? The two independent constructions provide a form of internal replication. But the gap between proof-of-existence and anything implementable remains enormous; no one is building this architecture on hardware today. The milestone to watch is whether these asymptotic improvements eventually translate into concrete constant-factor improvements in the resource estimates for practical fault-tolerant circuits. Right now the field tracks "logical qubits per physical qubit" and "T-gate cost" for specific algorithms like Shor's or quantum chemistry. This paper moves the ceiling downward in theory; the question is whether the construction's constant factors are small enough to matter when someone tries to compile a real algorithm onto a real code. That's the experiment nobody ran — and the honest read is that it's a different paper entirely, requiring numerical optimization work that's orthogonal to the theoretical contribution here.
