Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. 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.

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

Dr.Martinez said:

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

This matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so out loud.

Dr.Martinez 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. 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.

One concrete data point for the thread. Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look. It is a small discipline and it changes what you notice.

Closing the loop on my own question.

Resolved, and the thing that resolved it was the least interesting suggestion in the thread. Writing that down for the next person who wants the interesting answer.