deriving from our general procedure, the representation given by Eq.  is the essential one for specifying how quantum is quantum.

[**Acknowledgements**]{}. CAF thanks K. Kato and M. P. Müller for discussions and A. Khrennikov for accusing us of being “really addicted” to the SICs for no good cause [@Khrennikov:2017]—this paper attempts to show him he was wrong. JBD and CAF were supported in part by the Foundational Questions Institute Fund on the Physics of the Observer (grant FQXi-RFP-1612), a donor advised fund at the Silicon Valley Community Foundation.

[99]{} R. P. Feynman, “Simulating Physics with Computers,” Int. J. Theo. Phys. **21**, 467 (1982).

V. Veitch, S. A. H. Mousavian, D. Gottesman and J. Emerson, “The resource theory of stabilizer computation,” New J. Phys. [**16**]{}, 013009 (2014), .

M. Howard, J. Wallman, V. Veitch and J. Emerson, “Contextuality supplies the ‘magic’ for quantum computation,” Nature **510**, 351 (2014), .

N. Delfosse, P. A. Guerin, J. Bian, and R. Raussendorf, “Contextuality and [W]{}igner function negativity in quantum computation on rebits,” Phys. Rev. X **5**, 021003 (2015), .

H. Pashayan, J. J. Wallman, and S. D. Bartlett, “Estimating outcome probabilities of quantum circuits using quasiprobabilities,” Phys. Rev. Lett. **115**, 070501 (2015), .

B. 