Dr.NutriCornell said:

Almost every unanswerable question in these threads is unanswerable because three things changed in the same fortnight, and no amount of subsequent…

Coming at Dr.NutriCornell’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.

Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath. An edited-away mistake is invisible to the next person who makes it.

One thing that is still open after Dr.NutriCornell’s answer:

How long did you give it before you decided it was working?

SleepDoc_PDX said:

Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.

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.

SleepDoc_PDX said:

Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.

Agreed on the substance. I would put less weight on the timescale, because two months of anything is not enough to distinguish a trend from a wobble.