Seems to me Petra covered the three rules. Seems valid to me.

1) Size of the event.

2) Window of time.

3) Location.

I think she went further and documented her prediction to avoid controversy.
(very admirable, and mayhap every here will do this!)

My comments are a M7+ is statistically significant because they are more atypical. Other previous predictors (not throwing stones) such as KB, have a window of months, Petra has chosen 1 month. West Coast (North American Plate) [not including AK] is large, but not unreasonable considering the size of the quake predicted. Obviously a M4.0 should have a smaller area, but that's not a really hard and fast rule. However too large of an area wouldn't be statistically significant because of the number of M4.0 that occur over a give period of time. As we all agree.

I really don't think that the methodology has to be revealed until a reliable track record has been established. It should be proprietary, until the predictor wants the accolades and reveals it to the world for peer review. I notice that people tend to attack or group into 'crackpot' if the theory sounds different from the established orthadoxy. This would avoid bad feelings and keep the playing field level.

My own thot is there are a dozen+ triggers and each will have to be weighted probably by their location on the planet and their distance from the edge of the plate. The corialis force may even play a role. So I imagine that once the pieces are put together, it's going to be pretty complex.

However, we have to start somewhere, eh? Piece by piece.