NISQ vs FTQC Resource Estimate | Turn lessons into working experiments

Starter code

module ftqc_resource_estimate;
use std.qft2;
@estimate(code: "surface", distance: 7, target_error: 1e-3);

fn main() {
  let q: QReg<3> = qreg[3];

  qft2(q[0..1]);
  T(q[2]);
  CCNOT(q[0], q[1], q[2]);
  Rz(q[0], PI / 8);

  return 0;
}

Expected output

Output includes a normal NISQ resource line with depth and gate counts

Output also includes an FTQC estimate line from @estimate

The FTQC card reports code distance, logical qubits, physical qubits, T-count, T-depth, magic states, and runtime

The QASM/IR export preserves the estimate metadata for review

Debugging checklist

Run the starter code and find the FTQC estimate in Output

Open the Circuit tab and confirm the QFT helper expands into gates

Change distance from 7 to 9 and compare the physical qubit estimate

Remove T or CCNOT and explain why T-count and magic states change

Write one sentence separating NISQ gate count from FTQC physical cost

Extension challenge

Add another non-Clifford Rz angle and compare T-count, T-depth, magic states, and physical qubits.