The rule breaks down whenever length stops serving the query, and there are three clear cases where it does. The first is when the searcher wants a quick answer: for a query like a definition, a conversion, or a yes-or-no question, a short, direct page that resolves the intent in a sentence beats a two-thousand-word treatment that buries the answer. Length is not a ranking ingredient here; it is friction between the reader and what they came for, and the concise page wins precisely because it respects the intent.
The second case is padding without coverage. Word count can be inflated with restated points, throat-clearing introductions, and filler that adds length but no information, and that kind of bulk does not help and can hurt, because it lowers the density of useful content and signals a page stretched to hit a number rather than to cover a topic. The thing that ever correlated with longer pages ranking was thorough coverage of the subject, not the words themselves, and padding delivers the words while skipping the coverage that mattered.
The third case is a shorter competitor that simply fits the intent better. If a tighter page answers the query more completely and more directly than your longer one, it can outrank you on relevance regardless of length, because the comparison Google is making is about who best satisfies the searcher, not who wrote more. A shorter page that nails the intent beats a longer page that wanders around it, and length gives you no protection against being out-fit.
The unifying pivot is whether length serves the query or not. Long pages tend to rank when the topic genuinely needs depth and the searcher wants comprehensive coverage, and they stop ranking the moment that stops being true. So for your next piece, set the length to the query, not to a target: if the intent wants brevity, write the short, direct answer and drop the word-count goal, because the only thing that ranks is fit, and length is just one of the ways to achieve it or to undermine it.