Imagine you're a quality inspector at a factory, but you don't trust your measuring instruments. You can't just measure once and declare the product good — you need to cross-check instruments against each other until their answers are self-consistent enough that cheating becomes impossible. The more precision you demand, the more cross-checks you need. This paper asks: exactly how many cross-checks does self-consistent entanglement certification require? The committed claim: for a Bell circuit with local dimension d, the optimal number of distinct local measurement effects needed to achieve entanglement resolution γ (trace-distance) scales as Θd(γ^{-(d-1)}). This is a tight two-sided bound — both necessary and sufficient — meaning no clever measurement strategy can beat this scaling and no adversarial state can hide from it. This is a genuine complexity-theoretic result for a protocol introduced in the author's own Phys. Rev. X 16, 031057 (2026). The protocol sits in the generalized-noncontextuality approach to entanglement certification. Unlike standard Bell-inequality tests (which certify entanglement by violating local realism) or standard tomography (which requires trusted devices), this method certifies entanglement by checking whether measurement statistics can be explained by a noncontextual model. The key structural advantage: it requires no prior device characterization. The key structural cost: you need access to all local measurements, and the number of distinct effects you must implement grows polynomially in 1/γ but with an exponent that scales with dimension. Three results stack up. First, the tight Θd(γ^{-(d-1)}) bound for optimally chosen measurements. Second, Haar-random projective measurements pick up a log(1/γ) overhead, giving Θd(γ^{-(d-1)} log(1/γ)). Third, once you know the exact operational identities, the sample complexity — how many copies of the state you need — is Θd(γ^{-2} log(1/δ)) for error probability δ. The first two results are about measurement-design complexity; the third is about statistical sampling complexity. Together they give a complete resource picture for the known-identity regime. The integrity profile is clean but narrow. These are mathematical proofs — upper and lower bounds — not simulations or experiments. The validation is non-circular in the strongest sense: the lower bounds prove no algorithm can do better, and the upper bounds are constructive. But the results are purely information-theoretic. No noise models, no finite-precision arithmetic, no actual hardware. The paper is honest about what remains open: the sample complexity when operational identities must themselves be inferred from finite data. The milestone question is where this gets interesting for practitioners. The Θd(γ^{-(d-1)}) scaling means that for qubits (d=2), you need O(1/γ) effects — linear in resolution, very manageable. For qutrits (d=3), it's O(1/γ²). For d=4, O(1/γ³). The dimensional exponent is the real bottleneck, not the resolution. Any practical deployment of this protocol is limited to low-dimensional systems unless someone finds a way to exploit structure in the state to reduce the effective dimension. The glaring open problem — sample complexity when identities are unknown — is explicitly flagged as future work. This is the gap between theory and experiment: in a real lab, you don't know the operational identities a priori, so you must learn them from the same data you use for certification. The author almost certainly has partial results here and is saving them for a follow-up. This is the paper you'd want to see next, because it determines whether the protocol is practical or merely beautiful.
