ingrid_STO said:

Order of operations matters more than any single choice here: establish a baseline, change one thing, wait long enough for it to express itself, then…

Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. Most of what circulates confidently in this community traces back to one summary of one study, and the qualifier was dropped somewhere in the third retelling.

If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.

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.

Following on from ingrid_STO — and this may be the naive question:

Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?

lisa_labSD said:

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

I read this differently from lisa_labSD, on substance rather than tone. I would resist the confidence. Half of what this board was certain about two years ago has since been quietly dropped, and nobody went back to correct the threads.

lisa_labSD said:

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

No disagreement, though it depends on where somebody is starting from, and this thread has been assuming a starting point nobody stated.