I`m not bothered about triangles and the like and just how an image hits me and trying to guess what the photographer is aiming to portray. Without access to the exif details and the original I`m left wondering what camera was used / how it was edited.
I'm not bothered about triangles per se either - they were just a compositional device that in this instance would/could have unified and strengthened the composition, even if the viewer couldn't see exactly how the effect was achieved. Art concealing art, in fact.
To me, the technicalities are relatively worthless. If I wanted technical excellence and complete mastery, I'd only photograph test charts. With real world photographs, what I look for are images that make me think, that make me pause for thought, that make me admire the craft and vision of the photographer. So I simply don't bother about technical points, and knowing what's in the EXIF data won't make a blind bit of difference to how the image actually looks. I honestly don't think you need to know it to be able to see the depth of field, camera shake, exposure errors or noise or grain.
Andy - is there any point in my writing up my notes? You seem to have moved on and I don't want to waste my time if all you want are technical points, because I don't do them (except in passing to indicate how a technical change could have achieved an improved/stronger artistic effect.