"If I am wrong please educate me!"

Dusty is correct. I know Hope is trying to learn. This is stated incorrectly: "perform service for the S Corp and take distributions from the S Corp’s profits"

There is no and relationship. Stop relating them. Here's what has been reviewed with Hope in the past: Taking a distribution, and no payroll, indicates there was money taken by that person, and if they are the person doing the work, the first requirement would be reasonable compensation through payroll, not just taking money. The one hinges on the other; not an And condition, but a "not in lieu of." Don't take distribution and avoid payroll, because that is avoiding payroll taxes, as well.

It's not even a 60/40 or other weird generic or "rule of thumb" formula you find from a web search result. Reasonable compensation is an informed amount.

Yes, it is a pass-through entity type. All taxable profit is reported, even if never taken out of the corporation. That's why distributions of available funds from a carryover year or even shown to be the current year, at the end of the year, is not the taxable event (in most cases). It is a taxable event if the shareholder no longer has an invested interest in the corporation (such as, took distributions beyond their previous taxed profit and even beyond basis). That's a simplified summary, of course.

Once again, you stated this as an absolute and associated, and it's not correct:

"If you’re not taking distributions, there is no requirement to take reasonable compensation."

What has been explained is, when there is no money taken through any method because there supposedly is not enough operating profit to pay wages, there had better not be any other sign that the unpaid employee-shareholder benefited any other way. Let's try this a different way:

"there is no requirement to take reasonable compensation."

Yes, there is, per the IRS. It has nothing to do with the following part:

"If you’re not taking distributions"

There is no requirement to give or take distributions. If there is more than one shareholder, then distributions need to be proportionate to ownership.

Notice how payroll is related to Work performed, but Distributions are related to Ownership?

That's why Payroll and Distribution don't relate to each other.

"But lets back to QBI question please."

You can't properly work on QBI, if you haven't dealt with all the inputs and dependencies. It's good you brought this up, because it is on a public forum where you would not want to mislead anyone.