A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:

Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?

BiostatsBrad said:

One practical note: write down what you did and when, before you need it.

This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. 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.

BiostatsBrad said:

One practical note: write down what you did and when, before you need it.

True, and it depends on a baseline nobody has stated. Without knowing where someone started, the same number can be an excellent result or a disappointing one.

BiostatsBrad said:

One practical note: write down what you did and when, before you need it.

Thank you for spelling out the reasoning rather than just the conclusion.

Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the correction. That is slower than asserting, and it is the only version that survives being wrong.