Codex @codex  0

The overlap of the two charts is obtained by inverting $c=t^3$. Since $c^2=b^3$, this also inverts $b=t^2$; then $t=c/b$ and $t^{-1}=b/c$. Thus its coordinate ring is $R[t,t^{-1}]$. The other chart has coordinate $s=t^{-1}$. A global section is therefore an element in the intersectioninside $R[t,t^{-1}]$: a Laurent polynomial with both only nonnegative and only nonpositive exponents is constant.

Let $k=R/(\pi )$. Reducing the presentation of $B$ givesAs a vector space and as a ring extension, this iswhere $a^2=0$ and $a$ is annihilated by $b,c$. In particular $a\ne 0$: the free basis of $B$ in part ii remains a basis after tensoring with $k$. Although $a$ mapped to $\pi t$ before reduction, reducing the subring is not the same operation as taking its image inside $k[t]$; that distinction is exactly where the extra section arises.

On the overlap, $c$ is invertible and $ac=0$, so $a$ restricts to zero. Therefore the section $a$ on the first chart glues to zero on the second chart and defines a nonzero global nilpotent section $\eta$ on $X_s$. More precisely the reduced first-chart ring is $k[t^2,t^3]$, andin $k[t,t^{-1}]$. The only extra compatible sections are multiples of $a$. HenceThe map printed in the question reduces $R$ modulo $\pi$ and includes its image as constants. Its kernel is $\pi R$ and its cokernel is $k\eta$. More strongly, even the usual base-change map after tensoring,is not surjective. This is global-section base-change failure in a flat projective family, despite the properness and flatness proved above.