Further Reading: Dynamic Circuits

Tagged Tier 1 (confident it exists and recommended) and Tier 2 (real and worth seeking, but verify the current version or URL).

The founding papers

Both protocols in this chapter come from a remarkably short period and are worth reading in the original — they are short, and the arguments are cleaner than most retellings.

Bennett, Brassard, Crépeau, Jozsa, Peres, and Wootters, "Teleporting an Unknown Quantum State via Dual Classical and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Channels" (1993), Physical Review Letters 70, 1895. The original teleportation paper. Note the title: dual classical and EPR channels — the authors were explicit from the first sentence that classical communication is required, which is the point §9.3's pitfall keeps insisting on. Four pages. Tier 1.
Bennett and Wiesner, "Communication via One- and Two-Particle Operators on Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen States" (1992), Physical Review Letters 69, 2881. Superdense coding. Read it alongside the teleportation paper; the two protocols are the same resource trade in opposite directions, and the authors clearly saw them that way. Tier 1.
Nielsen and Chuang §1.3.7 and §2.3. The standard textbook treatment of both, with the algebra worked out step by step. §2.3's derivation of the teleportation correction table is the one to read if the four-case table in §9.3 felt like an assertion. Tier 1.

On what teleportation does and does not mean

The misconceptions in §9.3's pitfall are persistent enough to be worth arming against properly.

Any careful popular account that emphasizes the classical channel. The failure mode of most science journalism is to describe the entanglement and omit the two classical bits, which turns a correct protocol into an apparent violation of relativity. When evaluating a source, check whether it mentions the classical message; if not, it does not understand the protocol. Tier 2.
The no-communication theorem. The formal statement that no local operation on one half of an entangled pair can transmit information to the other half. Worth reading once, because it settles the faster-than-light question in general rather than protocol by protocol. Searchable under that name in any quantum information text. Tier 1.

On dynamic circuits in practice

The Qiskit documentation on classical feedforward and if_test. The current syntax, including else, switch_case, and the constraints on what can appear inside a conditional block. Check which constructs your target backend actually supports — hardware support is narrower than the language allows. Tier 1.
IBM Quantum's documentation on dynamic circuit support. Which devices support mid-circuit measurement and feedforward, what the latency looks like, and which classical operations are available. This is the page to check before designing a dynamic circuit, and it changes. Tier 2.
Papers on hardware demonstrations of qubit reuse. Search "qubit reuse quantum circuit compilation" — there is an active line of work on automatically identifying reuse opportunities in a circuit, which is the compiler-side version of §9.5's manual analysis. Tier 2.

On the latency problem (§9.7)

The chapter's central practical claim — that the classical round trip is the real cost — is an active engineering topic.

Any recent work on real-time classical control for quantum error correction. The requirement is brutal: a surface-code cycle must complete, including classical decoding, within a small fraction of the coherence time. Searching "real-time decoder surface code latency" finds the current state. This is the constraint Case Study 2's hardest question asks you to quantify. Tier 2.
Chapter 25 of this book §25.8, on the code cycle and its timing budget. The reason dynamic-circuit latency is a first-order engineering concern rather than a detail. Tier 1.
Chapter 29 §29.5, on idle time, scheduling, and dynamical decoupling — the tools for reasoning about "how long do my qubits sit idle," which §9.7 says is the right question. Tier 1.

On entanglement swapping and quantum networks

Exercise 9.15's subject, and where teleportation stops being a demo.

Żukowski, Zeilinger, Horne, and Ekert, "'Event-Ready-Detectors' Bell Experiment via Entanglement Swapping" (1993), Physical Review Letters 71, 4287. The original entanglement-swapping proposal: entangle two particles that have never interacted. It is teleportation applied to half of a Bell pair, and it is the basis of every quantum repeater design. Tier 1.
Any current review of quantum repeaters and quantum networks. Teleportation and entanglement swapping are the primitives; the engineering problem is entanglement distribution and purification over lossy channels. Relevant to Chapter 38's discussion of what quantum key distribution actually requires. Tier 2 — a fast-moving area.

Forward references

Chapter 25 is this chapter's real destination: syndrome extraction is measure-decode-correct in a loop, and fault-tolerant computing is a dynamic circuit run continuously.
Chapter 30 §30.6 covers state tomography properly, including why the three-basis verification of §9.3 costs exponentially many settings for many qubits.
Appendix F covers the OpenQASM 3 syntax for classical control, which is what these circuits serialize to.

Where to go next. If one thing: the 1993 teleportation paper. Four pages, and the title alone corrects the most common misconception about the protocol.

Then Chapter 10 — the transpiler in full.