reason for this is that other agents need not have had any chance to register the measured event due to how they are physically situated (outside the future light cone of the measurement process, say). In this case, if we take seriously the idea that quantum states should reflect the epistemic situations of the agents assigning them, assigning the same state as those who have registered the measured result would not only not be mandatory for those who haven’t registered it, it would even be wrong, for it would not conform to what they know of the values of observables of the system.

Furthermore, even if one interprets the state assigned after measurement as somehow objectively privileged or distinguished, this does not mean that other (let alone *all*) quantum systems must have equally privileged quantum states (to be identified with their “true” ones), independently of whether there happen to be any agents having knowledge of the values of their observables. The assumption that even when there are no such agents there exists some state which *would have to be assigned* by anyone intending to assign correctly need not be made and does not go well with the epistemic conception of 