lucas_SP_BR said:

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

That is right for the common case. Whether it is right for the case being asked about depends on a detail that has not been given.

lucas_SP_BR said:

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

Bookmarking. The distinction being drawn above is the one nobody else makes. Adding it to my notes with a link back to this thread.

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.

That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.

EndoResFellow said:

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

Same pattern here, and in the same order. Posting only so the count is not one.

EndoResFellow said:

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

Coming at EndoResFellow’s question from a different direction. The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions. Agreeing that something happens says nothing about whether it happens enough to act on.