hank_denver said:

Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.

I do not accept the framing. The question has been narrowed to the version that has a tidy answer, and the part that was dropped is the part the OP actually asked about.

Happy to go further on any of that.

hank_denver said:

Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.

True, and it depends on a baseline nobody has stated. Without knowing where someone started, the same number can be an excellent result or a disappointing one.

I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.

hank_denver said:

Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.

Bookmarking. The distinction being drawn above is the one nobody else makes.

Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. 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 measure again under the same conditions.

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

Closing the loop on my own question.

Coming back a few months on. It held. Nothing dramatic to report, which is the report.