re: record the failed refutation, and that the batched-draw trap recurred

The refutation aimed at the port did not land -- they already run two
timelines, measured on their side (72.6/552.6 against declared 73/553 over
17748 samples), the right instrument for a question about their own
renderer. Recorded as an attempt that failed; still worth making, since they
report they would otherwise have asserted it from the code.

Also notes in METHOD.md that the batched-draw trap produced a THIRD wrong
finding with the entry already written. Two sections of that file and a
REFUTED.md line already said a draw carries more than one quad. The lesson
is not the fact but that a reader written before consulting the file
reproduces the bug the file exists to prevent.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Jc4pciRArGHfxGGhEbwp5t

docs/re/METHOD.md

@@ -1600,6 +1600,14 @@ one bounding box.
 This produced two wrong findings in one session, one of them reported to another
 agent with three alternative explanations "ruled out":
 
+⚠️ **It then produced a THIRD, 2026-09-02, with this entry already written.**
+`f6-unit5` / `f6-unit6` declared `pteff03a` absent from every capture when it was
+the second quad of an `indices=8` draw the whole time. Two sections of this file
+and a `REFUTED.md` line already said a draw carries more than one quad. The trap
+is not that the fact is unknown -- it is that **a reader written before consulting
+this file reproduces the bug the file exists to prevent.** Use
+`tools/re-capture/read_draws.py` rather than rolling a fresh regex.
+
 * **`ptlogo_back2eff3` "is never drawn by the game".** It is batched with
   `ptlogo_back2eff4`, and because the wipe family is right-aligned, `eff3`
   (788…1196) lies **entirely inside** `eff4` (447…1196). The union is *exactly*