Imagine you're building with Lego. In the classical world, cryptographers proved decades ago that three seemingly different bricks — one-way functions, pseudorandom generators, and commitment schemes — are actually the same brick in disguise. If you have one, you can build the others. This paper does the same thing for quantum cryptography, but removes a crutch the previous proof was leaning on. The committed claim: EFI pairs (Efficiently Generated, statistically Far apart, computationally Indistinguishable quantum state pairs) are equivalent to expanding single-copy pseudorandom state generators (1PRS) — and this equivalence holds uniformly, without the non-uniform advice strings that Cavalar et al. [CCC+26] required. That non-uniformity removal is the entire contribution, and it matters more than it sounds. Why does uniformity matter? Non-uniform constructions allow an algorithm to receive an arbitrarily powerful "hint" — a string that could encode the solution to hard problems. Proving something non-uniformly is like proving you can solve a maze if someone whispers the first three turns. Removing non-uniformity means the construction works from scratch, no whispers, no precomputation oracles. This is the difference between a theoretical curiosity and a construction you could actually implement. The result completes a tidy triangle. Batra and Jain [BJ24] previously showed statistically verifiable one-way state generators are equivalent to commitments. This paper closes the last edge: EFI ↔ 1PRS uniformly. Together, the quantum world now mirrors the classical equivalence: one-way state generators ↔ commitments ↔ pseudorandom state generators, all interchangeable. EFI pairs sit at the center as the minimal assumption — the simplest primitive from which all quantum cryptography can be bootstrapped. The architectural family here is purely complexity-theoretic — this is a proof paper, not an algorithm paper. The tools are reductions between quantum computational primitives, drawing on meta-complexity theory (quantum analogs of Kolmogorov complexity characterizations). No hardware, no experiments, no benchmarks in the traditional sense. The "compute property" the proof leans on is the structure of uniform quantum polynomial-time computation (BQP) and its relationship to quantum state complexity classes. Integrity is strong for what this is: a mathematical proof paper. The validation is the proof itself — either the reductions are correct or they aren't. There are no benchmarks to cherry-pick, no baselines to choose. The risk is a gap in the proof, which peer review and community scrutiny will test. The paper builds explicitly on [CCC+26] and [BJ24], making the logical chain auditable. The milestone this contributes to is the full characterization of quantum cryptographic assumptions — specifically, whether quantum cryptography can exist even if P=NP (i.e., no classical one-way functions). EFI pairs might exist in worlds where classical crypto is broken. The next concrete step is either constructing EFI pairs from a candidate assumption believed to survive quantum attacks but not requiring classical OWFs, or proving a separation showing EFI can exist where OWFs cannot. That's likely 3-7 years out and depends on progress in quantum complexity theory, not hardware.
