A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
How would you tell the difference between that and the alternative explanation?
marcus_mpls said:The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked.
Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. Pushing back on the consensus forming here. Consistency is not the same as correctness, and a board that agrees with itself quickly is usually agreeing with the first person who sounded certain.
marcus_mpls said:The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked.
Correct as far as it goes. The part it does not cover is what to do when the honest answer is "not enough data", which is more often than anyone likes.
Happy to go further on any of that.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference Standardsmarcus_mpls said:The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked.
Genuinely useful, thank you. I had the facts and not the framework. Adding it to my notes with a link back to this thread.
Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. 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.