HPLC_Greg said:

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

Thank you — that is the clearest version of this I have read, and I have read a lot of them. Adding it to my notes with a link back to this thread.

From the other side of the consultation, briefly. 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.

Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.

Dr.PulmRoch said:

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

Same experience, arrived at from the opposite direction.

Dr.PulmRoch said:

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

Coming at Dr.PulmRoch’s question from a different direction. Take it one variable at a time. Almost every unanswerable question in these threads is unanswerable because three things changed in the same fortnight, and no amount of subsequent argument can untangle them after the fact.

Happy to go further on any of that.

One concrete data point for the thread. One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number. A figure without its method cannot be checked, and an unchecked figure is how this community accumulates folklore.