Unlike Hardy’s original argument, our demonstration reveals the paradox by observation, rather than inference.”
This seems to be a mistaken conclusion.
Hardy’s Paradox: “the axiom that we cannot make inferences about past events that haven’t been directly observed while also acknowledging that the very act of observation affects the reality we seek to unearth”
If the observation affects the reality, the paradox applies. If the observation does not affect the reality, the paradox does not apply. By older technology, the observation affected the reality. With newer technology, an observation can be made in a less obtrusive manner, so that it does not affect the reality. That means that the paradox does not apply. It’s wrong to say that the paradox has been observed. It just does not apply.
It is kind of like saying that the ancient Greeks were wrong about atoms being the smallest building blocks of matter. They said there were smallest building blocks, which they called “atoms.” Modern scientists concluded that we had found the smallest building blocks, and they called them “atoms.” Later, scientists concluded that there were “sub-atomic” particles. This doesn’t mean that the ancient Greeks (ancient geeks) were wrong. It means that some modern scientists were wrong when they concluded that they had identified the smallest particles. They only identified the smallest particles known at that time.
Then they acquired statistics of (and hence information of the quantum states) by averaging over many trials.
I liked your comment at the end, btw -- the modern scientists jumped the gun on deciding what entity really was an ἄτομος.
Cheers!