re(ui): Q1 -- the interpolation law holds, the group timeline does not

Q1's gate asks whether the ramp is linear. It is, and that result stands:
it rests on the splash's _eff glows, which reproduce exactly. This adds
the part that does not.

The test is a calibration, not a fit. Fix the clock on
palogo_gamearts_eff -- declared 15-unit fade-in 0@15 -> 255@30 against
captured alphas 34,68,102,136,170,204,238, a constant step of 34, giving
t = 2f - 171 -- then check that against the glow's own next landmark: its
declared hold ends t=45, predicted frame 108.0, observed last full-alpha
frame 107. Then apply it to palogo_gamearts in the same bundle and the
same frames, with no free parameter left:

  declared a=232 at t=206 -> frame 188.5, observed alpha 255
  declared a= 32 at t=210 -> frame 190.5, observed alpha 255

The logo is still at full alpha nine frames after it should read 32; its
fade-out runs ~17 frames late; its declared 80-frame fade-in is never
drawn. Not culling -- the same element is submitted down to a=7 on the
way out. Calibration-free version: the declared fade-out spends 12 of 16
units dropping 23/255 of the alpha, and the capture has no such plateau.

Candidate, offered and NOT adopted: if +36 held the NEXT keyframe's time,
the fade-out shape fits (RMS 4.05 vs 12.13, two elements) and the
decoder's "last block's time is unreadable" special case disappears --
the last block would simply have no successor. Rejected for now because
it explains neither the missing fade-in nor the lateness, and because the
_eff elements cannot discriminate between the readings at all (with four
blocks the shift only relabels the phases). Decoder unchanged.

Also withdrawn, mine, within the iteration: "the _eff glows hold a
constant alpha 33". They ramp 34 -> 255 in steps of 34. I printed the
series minimum and read it as its range, with a "14 distinct colours"
column sitting next to it saying otherwise.

docs/re/METHOD.md

@@ -358,3 +358,17 @@ agent's loop prompt, i.e. nowhere durable. See [`README.md`](README.md) for the
   the case that makes a term *large* — here 600 % and 800 % scale, worth 450 px —
   and check it there. A term you cannot distinguish from zero has not been
   verified by any amount of agreement.
+* **Printing a series' minimum and reading it as its range.** I summarised a
+  captured alpha series as "constant α ≈ 33" and built a contradiction on it —
+  the summary printed `min_alpha` and no maximum, and the series actually ramps
+  34 → 255 → 33. The tell was there in the same table: the column beside it said
+  *14 distinct colours*, which a constant series cannot have. When a summary
+  statistic and a distinct-value count disagree, the summary is wrong.
+* **Calibrate on one element, test on another.** Fitting a declared ramp to a
+  capture has two free parameters (rate and offset) and will "succeed" against
+  almost anything — my first attempt scored RMS 128/255 and I nearly read the
+  numbers rather than noticing the search could not reach the ramp at all. The
+  version that means something: fix the clock from element A's ramp, check that
+  fix against A's own next landmark, then apply it to element B in the same
+  frames with **nothing left to tune**. That is what turned "the shapes look
+  different" into "still at 255 nine frames after it should read 32".