24MP Educate me.

Sure, but the sense I get is 'name that is misleading' rather than 'name that someone applied wrongly'. The dictionary I looked at used as an example 'morning sickness', which leads one to think that it happens only in the morning when it can happen any time of day. The point I'm making is the what people call 'full well capacity' has these days very little to do with the capacity of the wells and whether they are full or not. Unless you dig deep into it, the natural assumption is that the size of the wells dictates their capacity, when it doesn't.

Yes, but your argument was based on the size of the photodiodes directly affecting the 'FWC', which isn't really the case. It was that which I responded to. It's an example of terminology that I think is unhelpful because it leads people to make perfectly reasonable assumptions from the term which are wrong. The other problem, as I said, is that FWC is being used several different ways, and that adds more confusion. Does it mean the charge capacity of the potential wells, or the limits of the read-out circuitry or the limits of the ADC count. There are plenty of cases where the same sensor presents with different 'FWC' in different cameras, simply because the camera designers have configured pre-ADC gain differently. So the sensor measurers are not actually measuring the sensor, they are evaluating the usage of a sensor in a particular camera.

I shouldn't think that there is, and if there was, it wouldn't make any difference - because that breakdown should never be reached in a properly designed pixel. Those transistors will be made as small as they can and still gives a breakdown above that required to give full output swing of SF.

It's possible that some do it that way, but papers I've seen on GS sensors say that it is only PD that collects exposure charge.

not 'less capacity' by itself, less capacity per pixel area (since we're talking about exposure). In the context of this discussion, where we're just talking about 24MP FF sensors, I suppose that's a given - but those important little qualifications have a way of wriggling out of the discussion.

I stopped taking it seriously at that point and re-appeared under a number of aliases. I was re-instated by Simon Joinson when he took over. Unfortunately that Askey doctrine was followed by some moderators, who decided that what was 'factual' depended on which forum you were posting on.

That's not the sense in which I was using it. I was using it to a word or phrase used in its accepted sense where its accepted sense is somewhat misleading. The important point is that I wasn't saying that you, personally, were misusing the word.

Those are exactly the components that appear in my diagrams. My diagrams show how they are connected. Simplified models are great, but one has to beware that the simplifications don't lead to a faulty understanding - which is different from a simplified understanding.
Also, if using the simplified models, avoid the jargon that goes with the full model.
If I wanted to talk about a simplified model I'd discuss the maximum exposure that can be captured and the efficiency (I'd likely leave out the word 'quantum', since that scares some people) explaining that it is the percentage of the available photons that can be captured. Together those two tell you how low you can take your ISO setting and how noisy the outcome is likely to be. The electronic designers figures of merit for image sensor aren't really very useful to most photographers.

Of course it's a 'valid choice'. Anyone is entitled to choose any kind of equipment they like and it's 'valid'. I use my Z6 quite a bit, even though I know my Z9's photos will be that bit more detailed. But for a whole load of things that bit more detail is not the most important consideration. I still use my mFT gear, even though that's only 16MP and has the DOF and achievable noise limitations associated with the system, because there are cases where that isn't the most important consideration.
As for Nikon's choice, well in the end the market will pronounce on whether they should have gone for more pixels or not.