Audit assumed-knowledge transitions in the molecular QPE tutorial

[sobolevnrm]

Problem

The ground-state molecular-QPE tutorial serves a mixed audience of advanced
undergraduate and early-stage graduate students with introductory chemistry and
quantum-computing backgrounds.

Before you begin states the expected prerequisites, and the tutorial defines
specialized methods before use. However, individual transitions can still assume
uneven background knowledge. A chemistry student and a quantum-computing student
may encounter difficulty at different points, even when the underlying material
is scientifically correct.

The tutorial needs a focused assumed-knowledge audit that identifies these
transitions without expanding every chapter to the same depth or turning the
tutorial into a general chemistry or quantum-computing textbook.

Desired outcome

Review the complete required tutorial from the perspectives of:

• a chemistry student with introductory quantum-computing knowledge; and
• a quantum-computing student with introductory chemistry knowledge.

For each concept transition, determine whether the tutorial should:

1. define the concept locally;
2. add one sentence connecting it to earlier material;
3. link to concise prerequisite or refresher material;
4. label the knowledge as an expected prerequisite; or
5. leave the current treatment unchanged.

Use local explanation for concepts required to complete an exercise or interpret
a result. Prefer optional links for background that helps orientation but is not
needed for the tutorial workflow.

Scope

Audit the complete student experience, including:

• the landing page and Before you begin;
• all required chapters;
• downloadable scripts and notebooks;
• visualization and circuit interpretation tasks;
• quiz questions and revealed answers; and
• the cumulative lab-notebook assignment.

Pay particular attention to transitions among:

• basis functions, molecular orbitals, spin orbitals, configurations, and
  determinants;
• Hartree-Fock, correlation, active spaces, natural occupations, and orbital
  entropy;
• second quantization, fermionic modes, Jordan-Wigner mapping, and Pauli
  operators;
• sparse trial states, fidelity, state-preparation circuits, and logical cost;
• phase kickback, feedback rotations, shots, majority voting, phase grids,
  aliasing, and reconstructed energies; and
• active energy, core energy, total energy, and the matching CASCI reference.

Constraints

• Do not force chemistry and quantum-computing explanations to identical depth.
• Do not duplicate full treatments owned by broader QDK tutorials, katas, or
  standard chemistry references.
• Do not add specialist detail that is unused by a later calculation,
  interpretation task, or lab-notebook requirement.
• Preserve the tutorial's cumulative workflow and concise chapter structure.
• Distinguish genuine learning blockers from optional mechanism-level depth.

Acceptance criteria

• Every required new concept is either defined before use or explicitly labeled
  as prerequisite knowledge.
• Cross-domain transitions include enough context for both target student
  profiles to continue the workflow.
• Optional refresher links are provided where a local derivation would interrupt
  the tutorial.
• Scripts, notebooks, questions, and lab-notebook assignments use terminology
  consistent with the rendered chapter text.
• Accepted changes are reviewed using both student personas and the quantum
  chemist/quantum-computing specialist checks where applicable.
• The final audit records deliberate decisions not to expand material when the
  existing treatment is sufficient.

[sobolevnrm]

Blocked by #625. Begin the broader pedagogical and assumed-knowledge audit after the native migration is complete, and close this issue through its own focused PR.