LabKate said:

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

That reframing is the part I needed.

Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. 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.

Dr.ObesityMed said:

Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.

This matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so out loud. Nothing to add that would improve it.

Dr.ObesityMed said:

Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.

Coming at Dr.ObesityMed’s question from a different direction. 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.

Reporting back.

Reporting back for the archive rather than for the thread: I did the narrow version of what was suggested, gave it the full interval, and it settled. Posting it because threads without a follow-up are half a thread.