sean_dublin said:

The useful checklist is about verifiability rather than presentation.

Bookmarking. The distinction being drawn above is the one nobody else makes. 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.

PedsEndoPhilly said:

Shipping damage protocol for vendor vetting orders: if your package arrives with visible damage, temperature excursion, or broken vials: Photograph…

Careful with the causal language. Two things moving together in a period when five things changed is not a mechanism, and stating it as one makes the thread less useful to somebody reading it later.

Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine. Half the figures circulating in this community trace back to a secondary summary that dropped a qualifier.

Moderator note: the sourcing question belongs in the vendor section and has been split out. Thread quality here is what the rules are for. Keep it up.