Imagine you're packing for a trip. The standard advice says bring six outfits for three days. But you sit down, enumerate every possible combination of what you actually need, and discover you can go with zero extra outfits — what you're wearing handles every scenario. That's this paper's core move applied to quantum error-correction circuits: it exhaustively searches every possible recovery-gate design for small repetition codes and finds that the standard decoders are carrying enormous dead weight. The committed claim: for repetition-code process tomography at n=3, 5, and 7 qubits with a fixed measurement basis, the minimum number of single-qubit Pauli recovery gates needed is 0, 1, and 5 respectively — compared to 6, 10, and 14 for first-order decoding and 6, 50, and 308 for full minimum-weight decoding. These aren't approximations. The counts come from exhaustive enumeration of every recovery design, with rank decided by exact modular arithmetic at two primes to avoid floating-point artifacts. The result is combinatorially exact. The structural insight that makes this clean is a separability theorem: the gate count depends only on HOW MANY sites are corrected, never on WHICH ones. This decouples the design problem into two independent halves — a site-count decision and a site-assignment decision. It also reveals a non-monotonicity that challenges intuition: correcting more sites is not always better. At n=7, full minimum-weight decoding actually loses three dimensions of rank compared to sparser correction. Under realistic calibration-residual noise floors, the precision curve at n=3 is U-shaped — there's a sweet spot, and over-correcting misses it. The precision gains are not marginal. The three-gate design (actually zero gates at n=3) is 9.5× more precise than the standard six-gate decoder at the median of 40 sampled working points, and more precise at every single one of them — the range spans 1.8× to 88×. The paper is careful to note that the magnitude of the advantage depends on the working point, but the ordering never flips. This is the kind of result that makes you wonder how much resource overhead in current quantum protocols is just convention rather than necessity. Practical reach is honestly assessed. Reaching 10 mrad RMS error costs 1.2×10⁷ shots in about 65 seconds on a current superconducting device at a well-conditioned working point. That's within reach for n=3. But n≥5 stays out of reach — not because of gate count (the whole point is that gates are cheap) but because of conditioning. The condition numbers blow up, and no amount of shot budget fixes that on current hardware. This is a clean separation of what's engineering-limited versus what's fundamentally limited. A final structural result: the optimal designs break chain-reversal symmetry. They separate the mirror pair identified in the companion paper (arXiv:2610.19779) by 1.3×10⁻³ while keeping the Jacobian at full rank. This is not a bug — it's a diagnostic tool. If your process has a directional asymmetry, this decoder will see it; the standard symmetric decoder cannot. This is a companion paper to arXiv:2610.19779, and the two together form a complete argument: the companion establishes the tomographic protocol, and this paper optimizes the decoder resource within it. The result is narrow — repetition codes, Pauli gates, fixed measurement basis — but within that scope it is exhaustive and exact. The open question is whether the separability and non-monotonicity results generalize to more complex stabilizer codes, and the honest answer is that exhaustive enumeration will not scale to find out.
