stefan_berlin said:

One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.

This is exactly what I could not find anywhere else.

Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated. Those two sets overlap less than the confident tone of most write-ups suggests, and the second set is where nearly all the disagreement on this board comes from.

Worth separating that from compounded supply, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.

PharmD_Rodriguez said:

The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.

Second this. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.

PharmD_Rodriguez said:

The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.

Coming at PharmD_Rodriguez’s question from a different direction. 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.

The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason. In three months the reason is what you will have forgotten, and the reason is what makes the record worth having.