ingrid_STO said:

It helps to say which part of this you are uncertain about.

Adding a me-too, because a thread of one person's experience is not much use.

ingrid_STO said:

It helps to say which part of this you are uncertain about.

Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. 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.

Moderator note: good thread. Keeping it here rather than moving it, because the question is general enough to be useful.

A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:

What would you measure differently if you were starting again?

josh_phd_bmore said:

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…

Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. Pushing back on the anecdote-stacking. Twenty people reporting the same thing is twenty samples from the same self-selected pool, not twenty independent confirmations.