Two recent approaches to computation in superposition reach different recursive capacity regimes: Hänni et al. certify O~(d3/2) computable features in width d via an approximate-linear recursive template, while Adler and Shavit reach near-quadratic capacity (up to logarithmic factors) using thresholded Boolean recovery. The main contribution of this paper is conceptual: we argue these results are not contradictory because they maintain different interface invariants, and we formalize the distinction. As a tool, we record a rank-trace Welch-type lower bound for biorthogonal linear readouts: for F≫d, the worst-case off-diagonal cross-talk of any unit-diagonal linear readout is Ω(d−1/2), and the bound is tight on average for unit-norm tight frames. At quadratic feature load F=d2, random-support threshold recovery succeeds for sparsities s=O(d/logd), while linear readouts still incur Ω(s/d) average per-coordinate squared error on Bernoulli sparse states. Matching the Welch floor against the published tolerance of the Hänni correction layer explains the d3/2 scale as a compatibility threshold for that template, not a universal upper bound. Robust nonlinear reset beyond the Hänni template is left open.