Imagine you're a counterfeiter trying to reproduce not just the average color and weight of a banknote, but the entire statistical fingerprint — the distribution of every fiber, every ink speck. You can match the first few statistical moments (mean, variance, skewness) cheaply, but how close does that get you to the real distribution? This paper answers that question for quantum circuits: if you match k moments of the Haar measure, how faithfully does each individual output probability track the ideal Porter-Thomas distribution? The committed claim: for any strong ε-approximate unitary k-design on n qubits, the Kolmogorov distance between the distribution of each output probability and the finite-dimensional Porter-Thomas (Beta(1, 2^n−1)) distribution is O(√(2^n / (k(k+2^n))) + ε). This bound is tight up to constant factors. In plain language, moment-matching alone gives you distributional accuracy that improves as √k until k ≈ 2^n, after which you're in diminishing-returns territory. No uniform bound can do substantially better without leaning on additional structural assumptions. The second result is the real surprise. If the design is also invariant under unitary translations acting on log(k) + O(1) qubits — a natural property of many circuit architectures — the distributional error drops to 2^{−Ω(k)} + O(ε) in Kolmogorov distance. That's exponential improvement over the √k baseline, a qualitative jump. The paper also extends this to the stronger total variation metric at 2^{−Ω(k)} + O(ε log(2/ε)). This tells practitioners: if your random circuit construction happens to have local invariance, you are getting far more distributional fidelity than moment-matching alone would predict. The proof machinery is pure mathematical analysis — representation theory, moment methods, and distributional convergence tools. There is no simulation, no numerics, no hardware. This is a theorem paper, not an experiment paper. The architecture is classical probability and quantum information theory: it belongs to the analytic-combinatorial family of results characterizing pseudorandomness in quantum systems, alongside the Brandão-Harrow-Horodecki framework for approximate designs and the recent wave of results on random circuit depths for design convergence. The integrity case is strong for what it is: mathematical proof with explicit constants. The bounds are shown to be optimal via matching lower-bound constructions. The paper doesn't claim more than it proves — it's honest that the Kolmogorov bound is a uniform worst-case guarantee, and the application to Shannon entropy is presented as a corollary, not an independent validation. The weakness is that the connection to physically realizable circuits remains one step removed; the results hold for any construction meeting the design definition, but the paper doesn't demonstrate which existing circuit families satisfy the local-invariance condition and at what depth. As an application, the paper shows that Kolmogorov closeness η in the marginal output distributions implies the expected Shannon entropy of the output distribution is within O(√η) of its Haar value. This is a clean, usable relationship: entropy — the quantity you actually measure in quantum supremacy experiments — is controlled by the distributional fidelity of individual output probabilities. It connects the abstract design-theory guarantee to the operational metric experimentalists care about. The milestone question for this line of work is: can these distributional guarantees be plugged into concrete random circuit constructions (brickwork circuits, random Clifford + T architectures) with explicit depth bounds? The paper provides the target — the conversion from moment order to distributional accuracy is now quantitatively understood — but the circuit-design side must close the loop. The obvious next experiment the authors did not run is verifying the local-invariance condition for specific circuit families and computing the resulting distributional accuracy at realistic depths and qubit counts. The honest read: this is a theory paper and that work is for the circuit-design community to do, not a gap the authors are hiding.
