The problem is that this comes out of applying the same calibration equation used for 'normal' operations. The steady state is so radically different in a 'boiled-dry' cell that everyone should know you can't do that.
Right. This is a more nuanced case of the it blew up so it must be LENR argument.
First of all, Shanahan's statement is completely wrong. Everyone knows that boiled-dry cell is different. The differences and the physics of that were worked out long ago, and they are explained in paper by F&P in detail. It is ridiculous to say the same calibration equation is used. Anyone can see from the paper that is not the case. So, you are agreeing with balderdash.
Second, no one would ever say that a cell that explodes musts be LENR. That's ridiculous. Cells explode all the time in electrochemistry. They are either designed to explode harmlessly under a hood, or designed to release the pressure long before they explode, with valves, corks, or straws (weak points). The only time anyone claims the explosion is anomalous is when there is no chemical fuel in the cell (typically no oxygen in a gas loaded cell), or there is only a tiny amount of potential fuel in an open cell and the force of the explosion far exceeds what that fuel could produce.
A chemical explosion of a cell at SRI killed Andrew Riley. This cell had several fail-safe devices to prevent an explosion, but in a horrible coincidence, they all failed at the same time for different reasons. No one claimed this event was anything other than a chemical explosion. Very few cells in the history of the field could have had stored this much potential chemical energy. Most would have failed long before that much built up, and others do not store any chemical fuel at all.