 Solution

The profile estimate and equilibrium lever-rule estimate need not agree exactly. The height trace contains only four major ridges, making it a small sample of the microstructure. Pixel size, ridge-threshold choice, tip geometry, contamination, polishing damage and unequal etching change apparent widths. A finite-radius AFM tip can broaden the narrow raised cementite regions, biasing their inferred fraction upward.

The equilibrium calculation assumes eutectoid pearlite with the chosen carbon composition and tie-line values. Off-eutectoid steel can include proeutectoid ferrite or cementite outside the pearlite; alloying, carbon segregation and non-equilibrium cooling alter the simple Fe–C estimate. Carbon solubility also varies with temperature. The mass-to-volume conversion requires phase densities.

The observed difference between roughly $17\%$ ridge fraction and $11\%$ equilibrium phase volume is therefore a reason to examine sampling and the etched-surface measurement, not to force the image widths to match the lever rule. Multiple colonies, repeated calibrated traces and a phase-sensitive measurement would improve the comparison.