re: settle the 49.6/92.3 split -- both are real, and the second explanation was wrong too

sylpheed-port corrected their own reconciliation and I reproduced it: 0 nested
records on this disc lack a timed keyframe. All 1530 are static -- timed, every pose
at t == 0 -- so the question is well-formed there and 'not exact' is a real answer,
not an absent one. A static record still declares a cycle length.

So the two percentages are two populations and neither corrects the other: 92.3 % of
animated records, 49.6 % of all nested records including static ones, same numerator
1643. Both need their population attached.

Two wrong explanations preceded this, both mine to carry: that my scan filtered
untimed records, which .max() returning Some(0) prevents, and then their 'questions
never asked' framing which I adopted.

The page is rewritten to the settled state rather than stacked. Nothing the port
depends on moved at any point.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Wuu56cE8vJGTBtn1ppsk8v

docs/re/METHOD.md

@@ -3242,11 +3242,15 @@ Two agents, one statistic, and the disagreement was **entirely in the denominato
 `1643/1781 = 92.3 %` against `1643/3311 = 49.6 %`. **Neither of us was wrong about
 the disc.**
 
-🔴 **My explanation of the gap was wrong too.** I said my scan "requires a timed
-keyframe". It does not — `.max()` over the keyframe times returns `Some(0)`, not
-`None`, for a record whose keyframes all sit at time 0, so those never left my
-denominator. 1 530 records where *"does the word equal the largest keyframe time?"*
-has **no content** were counted as failures **by construction**.
+🔴 **Two wrong explanations were offered for the gap before the right one.** Mine
+first: I said my scan "requires a timed keyframe" — it does not, because `.max()`
+returns `Some(0)` rather than `None`. Then `sylpheed-port`'s reconciliation, which
+I adopted: that the extra 1 530 are *"questions never asked"* with no content.
+**Also wrong, and they corrected it themselves.** Measured: **0** records on this
+disc lack a timed keyframe; all 1 530 are **static** — timed, every pose at t = 0.
+A static record still declares a cycle length, so a nonzero `+0x08` against a
+largest time of 0 is a **real disagreement, not an absent one**, and the 49.6 % is
+a defensible statistic over a different population rather than an artefact.
 
 📌 **`sylpheed-port`'s diagnosis of why it stayed invisible is the transferable
 part: the numerator agreed to the unit.** We both looked at **1 643** and neither
@@ -3258,3 +3262,20 @@ where the question is meaningful*, not *of nested records* — quoted bare on bo
 sides for two days, including into a shipped doc comment. **A population-scoped
 statistic reported without its population is the same shape as a negative reported
 without its reach**, and this corpus already had a rule for the second.
+
+### Three rounds, one number, and every disagreement about interpretation
+
+The sequence is worth keeping as a shape. I corrected an argument; they corrected
+my denominator; they then corrected their own characterisation of what was in it.
+**Every step was checkable in one scan**, and each of us stated an interpretation
+confidently while only the number had been measured.
+
+📌 **The numbers never disagreed** — 1 643, 3 311, 1 781, 0 % — through all three
+rounds. Every disagreement was about **what they were counting**. That is the
+cheaper failure and I suspect the more common one: agreeing figures feel like
+agreement, and neither party re-examines a quantity they both accept.
+
+⚠️ Nothing the port depends on moved at any point: `+0x08` matches exactly wherever
+the largest time is nonzero, `+0x04` is 0 % under either denominator, and the offset
+stands on both scans. **Three rounds of correction over an interpretation that was
+never load-bearing** — which is also why it was safe to keep pulling.