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.

LipidDoc_ATL said:

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

Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale.

LipidDoc_ATL said:

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

Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it. The narrow version usually has an answer; the broad version usually does not, and answering the broad one is how a thread stops being useful.

One concrete data point for the thread. One practical note: write down what you did and when, before you need it. Reconstructing a timeline from memory three months later is how people end up unable to answer the one question that would have resolved it.

One thing that is still open after LipidDoc_ATL’s answer:

What would you measure differently if you were starting again?