re: name the region and the threshold -- and the floor was cross-geometry

The port agent could not reproduce this page's 159/714/1520 from the capture it
holds: counting green>150..200 over a plate box it got 3-5x at every threshold.
The page named neither the region nor the predicate.

Stated now: the whole 1280x720 frame, and is_title.py's three-channel predicate
(g>130 & g-r>45 & g-b>45), which is why it counts far fewer pixels than a bare
green>N. That reproduces 1520/714/159 exactly.

Writing the method down exposed a defect the prose had hidden. The 159 floor
came from live-title-build4-no-plate.png at 1279x675 -- the game surface --
while the pulse frames are 1280x720, the whole display. Different crops,
silently compared.

Replaced with a same-run, same-geometry floor that was in the series all along:
154, flat for ~2 s immediately before the plate ramps in. So 'it never goes off'
now rests on one run in one geometry, at 714 against 154, which is where it
should have rested from the start. The port's independent ratio of 1:10.4-10.9
brackets this page's 1:9.6 and is the part robust to how anyone counts.

Two METHOD entries: a pixel figure needs its region and its predicate, and a
comparison between two counts needs them to share a geometry; and the port's
observation that a fix which overshoots leaves no symptom until a third change
needs the part it disabled.

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

docs/re/METHOD.md

@@ -1209,3 +1209,38 @@ that disagree announce nothing at all, and a reader takes whichever they opened.
 The port fixed its case by deleting the duplicate rather than picking a winner,
 which is right: with the evidence gone, choosing between 53.2 and 53.3 would have
 been authoring a measurement.
+
+## A pixel figure without its region and its threshold is not checkable
+
+`plate-pulse-measured.md` published 159 / 714 / 1520 as the plate-absent floor and
+the pulse's two levels. The port agent holds the same capture, tried to reproduce
+the floor, and got 3–5× at every threshold it tried — because the page named
+neither the **region** (whole 1280×720 frame, not a plate crop) nor the
+**predicate** (`(g>130) & (g−r>45) & (g−b>45)`, a three-channel test, not
+`green > N`).
+
+⚠️ **This is worse than an obviously incomplete number.** A figure with no stated
+method reads as checkable, so a reader spends real effort failing to reproduce it
+and then has to decide whether the disagreement is theirs or yours.
+
+And writing the method down immediately exposed a defect the prose had hidden: the
+floor came from a **1279×675** capture while the pulse came from **1280×720**
+frames — different crops, silently compared. The fix was a same-run, same-geometry
+floor that was in the series all along.
+
+**So:** every pixel count states its region and its predicate, and a comparison
+between two counts states that they share a geometry. If they do not, that is a
+finding about the comparison, not a detail.
+
+## A fix that overshoots leaves no symptom until something else needs the part it disabled
+
+From the port agent, and it generalises past its own case. Its static-overlay path
+was **frozen at the overlay's arrival** — a fix for a different bug that reached too
+far and stopped the overlay's clock entirely. Nothing noticed for a week, because
+nothing needed that clock to advance. The plate pulse is what finally gave it
+something to be wrong about.
+
+⚠️ **An over-broad fix does not fail; it goes quiet.** The class of bug to look for
+is not "this is broken" but "this has been correct-by-inactivity since the day
+somebody disabled it". When a fix works by *stopping* something rather than
+correcting it, that is the moment to write down what has been stopped.