PeptideChemSF said:

One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.

I read this differently from PeptideChemSF, on substance rather than tone. The objection nobody has made: this only works if the measurement is doing what we assume it is doing, and that assumption has not been tested here.

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

PeptideChemSF said:

One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.

Correct, and worth adding that it is reversible. Nothing being described here is a one-way door, which changes how cautious it is reasonable to be.

PeptideChemSF said:

One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.

That reframing is the part I needed. I will report back once I have actually tried it.

From the other side of the consultation, briefly. The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either. Those three things can all be true at once, and most arguments here are two people holding different parts of that.

ingrid_STO said:

The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either.

This is my experience too, for whatever a second data point is worth. Nothing to add that would improve it.