  Macroscopic Realism (MR) says that a macroscopic system is always
determinately in one or other of the macroscopically distinguishable states
available to it. The Leggett-Garg (LG) inequality was derived to allow
experimental test of whether or not this doctrine is true; it is also often
thought of as a temporal version of a Bell-inequality. Despite recent interest
in the inequality, controversy remains regarding what would be shown by its
violation. Here we resolve this controversy, which arises due to an
insufficiently general and model-independent approach to the question so far.
We argue that LG's initial characterisation of MR does not pick out a
particularly natural realist position, so we articulate an operationally
well-defined and well-motivated position in its place. We show that much weaker
conditions than LG's are sufficient to derive the inequality: in the first
instance, its violation only demonstrates that certain measurements fail to be
non-disturbing at the operational level. We articulate three distinct species
of MR-ist position, and argue that it is only the first of these which can be
refuted by LG inequality violation. This first position is an attractive one,
so ruling it out remains of interest, however. A crucial role is played in LG's
argument by the assumption of noninvasive measurability. We show that this
notion is ambiguous between the weaker notion of disturbance at the operational
level, and the stronger notion of invasiveness at the ontic level of properties
of the system. Ontic noninvasiveness would be required to rule out MR per se
but this property is not entailed by MR, and its presence cannot be established
in a model-independent way. It follows that despite the formal parallels,
Bell's and LG's inequalities are not methodologically on a par. We close with
some reflections on the implications of our analysis for the pedagogy of
quantum superposition.
