Wouldn't this be equivalent of making separate magistrata for classical and quantum physics? Doesn't this form a argument ad absurdum as the end result seems to be what is found to be an anti-value via other methods?

I would like to point out that while the qualia/immidiate-sensory-experiences are not up to interpretations, the standard way of interpreting them are. Those subjective-state-into-actions mappings would still have been proven good if they were not structured in terms of classical physics. That is there migth need to be a more explicit distinction about method of making a choice and choosing an option. Usually a method is good if it picks the good options but that doesn't favour it over a another method that would pick the same option. If QM would predict that CM would be dysfuntional we would know QM to be wrong. In order for QM to be a compelling alternative structuring it needs to explain why CM worked. Things need to add up to normality. That QM says that CM saying that a option is not-bad is invalid doesn't mean that QM claims the option to be bad. If someone is found quilty via a faulty trial it doesn't mean they are innocent. However if QM would have picked the same actions than CM there is little incentive left to stick with CM.