The factors that change when you disassemble and reassemble a cell cause the cell calibration equation to be different. This is known and obvious. This is NOT moving the heat from one zone to another, as I deem a requirement to see a CCS.
Miles also moved the source of heat from one zone to another, with different configurations. But let us assume you are right, and he did not. In that case, there can be no CCS in his cells. Yet he saw excess heat.
The changes in the cell calibration after disassembly and re-assembly are in noise, which is "±20 mW or ±1% of the input power" (p. 13). He saw up to 360 mW of excess heat (in the studies in this paper).
More to the point, when you disassemble and reassemble a cell, that never causes it to produce spurious excess heat. Even if the calibration constant changes significantly, you always measure the new one; you don't use the old one. And if you did not re-measure the calibration constant, the cell would as likely produce "anomalous cold" as heat. As would your CCS theory; something you have never explained.
Excess heat only occurs with Pd-D, not Pd-H, Pt-H, or Pt-D. It only occurs when loading exceeds a certain level, and when the Pd cathode does not fracture or develops macroscopic cracks. These causal factors cannot affect the calorimetry. They cannot even trigger your imaginary CCS -- even according to you. Yet the excess heat appears only with Pd-D, intact and highly loaded. Your theory cannot explain that. It cannot begin to explain it. No error in calorimetry could be connected with these factors. They are totally independent of the method of calorimetry.