Dr.RheumBOS said:

Reporting back for the archive rather than for the thread: I did the narrow version of what was suggested, gave it the full interval, and it settled.

I read this differently from Dr.RheumBOS, on substance rather than tone. Pushing back on the anecdote-stacking. Twenty people reporting the same thing is twenty samples from the same self-selected pool, not twenty independent confirmations.

Dr.RheumBOS said:

Reporting back for the archive rather than for the thread: I did the narrow version of what was suggested, gave it the full interval, and it settled.

Correct, and worth adding that it is reversible. Nothing being described here is a one-way door, which changes how cautious it is reasonable to be.

Dr.RheumBOS said:

Reporting back for the archive rather than for the thread: I did the narrow version of what was suggested, gave it the full interval, and it settled.

This answered a question I did not know how to ask. Printing the relevant bit and taking it with me.

Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person. Both are real; they answer different questions and get quoted as if they were the same one.

newstart_MO said:

The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person.

Second this.