NicoleRaleigh said:Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.
Agreed on the substance. I would put less weight on the timescale, because two months of anything is not enough to distinguish a trend from a wobble.
NicoleRaleigh said:Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.
Thank you for spelling out the reasoning rather than just the conclusion. I will report back once I have actually tried it.
Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not. That is answerable; arguing about which sounds more plausible is not.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsLibrarianMeg said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
Same experience, arrived at from the opposite direction. Nothing to add that would improve it.
Closing the loop on my own question.
For the archive: it took about six weeks rather than the two I expected, and the difference between those two numbers was the whole of my problem.