You wave your hands and talk about imaginary foam, but in real life there is no foam. Recombination at the cathode is also impossible, as you would see if you try to induce it yourself. If it did happen, it would be obvious, using the methods that Staker and all other electrochemists employ. Since we know these imaginary problems do not happen, and cannot happen, you are wrong.
The F&P video showed what looked like foam. I don't mind at all whether you call it microbubbles or foam. Either way, it can alter calorimetry if the calorimetry depends on the liquid level. Does the part at the top which is foam (call it bubbles if you like - but on that F&P video it looked like foam) behave like liquid or air?
Please do not invoke the "all other electrochemists" thing. Find three good non-LENR electrochemists to arbitrate (as in a mainstream peer review). Or, better, check carefully all possible artifacts. Which by the way is what all non-LENR scientists do when confronted with unexpected results.
When results are unexpected, as here, all of the experimental details need to be clear, if anyone other than LENR believers is going to think the result is certain.
Remember: what LENR needs is certain and replicable experiments. Since Staker's result is replicable (he says) it would be great if it were also certain.
That comes from being careful about effects that can change calorimetry: especially in this setup which has quite variable calibration constants according to meniscus level.