2026-07-072026-07-07http://salesiana.dossiersoluciones.com/handle/123456789/147763Classical mechanics and standard Copenhagen quantum mechanics respect subspace implications. For example, if a particle is confined in a particular region $R$ of space, then in these theories we can deduce that it is confined in regions containing $R$. However, subspace implications are generally violated by versions of quantum theory that assign probabilities to histories, such as the consistent histories approach. I define here a new criterion, ordered consistency, which refines the criterion of consistency and has the property that inferences made by ordered consistent sets do not violate subspace relations. This raises the question: do the operators defining our observations form an ordered consistent history? If so, ordered consistency defines a version of quantum theory with greater predictive power than the consistent histories formalism. If not, and our observations are defined by a non-ordered consistent quantum history, then subspace implications are not generally valid.To appear in ``Relativistic Quantum Measurement and Decoherence'', F. Petruccione (ed.), Springer-VerlagGeneral Relativity and Quantum CosmologyQuantum Physicstext