First, distinguish a strong sense of possessed values where possessed value are values a system possesses independently from being measured and a weak sense of possessed values where possessed values are possessed simpliciter, i.e. the system just has them, perhaps as a result of measurement, perhaps not.
In passing, Curiel observed that although a trial court might eventually find that the Trump University programs "possessed value," restitution should turn on the fact that the customers probably wouldn't have bought the programs at all if they knew in advance that Trump's role was marginal, if even that.
The KS argument can be given without FM, since it makes claims about possessed values, not measured values.
(See the main text below, § 5.3, for more on faithful measurement; see also Redhead, p. 131 after eq. (11), for the connection between faithful measurement and possessed values).
Indeed, an eventual failure of FM would be the natural way to explain why a certain constraint on possessed values does not show up in the measurement statistics.
Now, don't we have good reason to carefully distinguish measured and possessed values in QM? Fortunately, no such distinction is really necessary.
If there is a real difference between possessed values and measured values and no explicit assumption equating both types of values is made, then STAT FUNC (version 1) derivable from FUNC talks about a statistical relation among functions of possessed values, while STAT FUNC (version 2) is derived from QM, hence by definition talks about the statistics of measured values.
One quite obvious objection to this type of argument is that the original KS argument works for possessed values, not measured values, so the MKC argument, dealing on finite precision of measurement, misses the mark.
(Indeed, the derivation FUNC → STAT FUNC itself uses the Statistical Algorithm, which would be an illegitimate procedure if the latter did not refer to probabilities for possessed values, in some sense).
About 80% samples experienced higher value and only 20% samples possess value < 50 mg/L.
And VE is very well positioned to solve it, she argues, because the correct solution must help us see how knowledge possesses value independently of anything "external" to its production.
