I agree, but only by a very little bit; you have a very sharp eye to have spotted it.
Also, I think that the optical correction making the O and Q a little higher than the cap line is slightly overdone. C, G, and S, on the other hand, have an appropriate optical correction.
Also, are some of the angled stroke weights reversed in contrast? The A Y and the like feel flipped, unless it's perhaps an intentional part of this design.
This font can't make up its mind: C/G/S/Q feel like they're from a humanist slab, while the rest of the font wants to be a heftier Trajan. The M/N should probably complement each other more, with a straight-side M or a top-serifless N. (The N feels too wide, regardless.) There are inconsistencies in the treatment of the serifs throughout.
A is very light, apart from its crossbar which is darker than other crossbars. If anything it should be equal to V with a lighter crossbar to compensate.
After you have sized O/Q/C/G correctly, they will still seem out of place until you widen D to a comparable roundness.
I think the difference between C and G top serifs is good. The top serif of S is a touch dark and you might want to try making it more like that of G.
Comments
Also, are some of the angled stroke weights reversed in contrast? The A Y and the like feel flipped, unless it's perhaps an intentional part of this design.
Is the top half of Z left-leaning a bit?