Clarification on spec's text around implicit call tear-off

The [spec I'm looking at](https://spec.dart.dev/DartLangSpecDraft.pdf) says:

> Case Implicit. Let _e_ be an expression whose static type is an interface
> type that has a method named `call`. In the case where the context type for _e_
> is a function type or the type `Function`, _e_ is treated as _e_`.call`.

Two questions:

1. Should "interface type that has a method named" instead be "interface type that has an instance method named"?
2. Does the text "interface type that has a method named" (or "interface type that has an instance method named") directly exclude extension methods? I think the intention is to exclude extension methods, as per [the static extension methods spec](https://github.com/dart-lang/language/blob/master/accepted/2.7/static-extension-methods/feature-specification.md), but I want to make sure that any language like "interface type that has a method" is exclusive of extension methods.

> This code will find, during type inference, that `2` is not a function. It will then find that the interface type `int` does not have a `call` method, and inference will fail to make the program valid.

> We could allow an applicable `call` extension method to be coerced instead, as an implicit tear-off. We will not do so.

Read the cited Dart language specification section alongside the static extension methods feature specification. Determine whether “interface type that has a method named” excludes extension methods and whether “instance method” is needed, then document the agreed interpretation or resulting specification wording; the issue is done when both questions have an authoritative answer.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.