Recall that "ontic" and "epistemic" are how we distinguish real facts about reality from observer-dependent knowledge about reality. On your (1), the typical i

Recall that "ontic" and "epistemic" are how we distinguish real facts about reality from observer-dependent knowledge about reality. On your (1), the typical interpretations for QM say that the wavefunction is not ontic, and this is directly traceable to the Copenhagen school of thought. QM is best done when we consider that our knowledge of systems is always partial; it turns out that often, the system itself is also partial about knowledge of own state. I greatly enjoyed reading [0] recently for a coverage of a toy theory exploring this distinction in more detail. On your (2), quantum contextuality [1] means something more subtle than your phrasing; it means that the state of a system is not the entirety of what is measured by an observer. To use your phrasing and state something very strong, the Free Will Theorem [2] says that the state of a system informs, but can never totally control, the way that a particle chooses to reply to an observer taking a measurement. This both opens the door for new avenues in free-will philosophy while slamming shut the idea that e.g. determinism can be meaningful or possible. [0] https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0401052 https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0401052 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_contextuality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_contextuality [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_theorem