dan_philly said:

The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the…

That holds where the measurement is reliable. Where it is noisy — and a lot of what gets tracked here is noisy — the same reasoning produces confident nonsense.

dan_philly said:

The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the…

Thank you — that is the clearest version of this I have read, and I have read a lot of them. Adding it to my notes with a link back to this thread.

Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false. If nothing would look different, it is not a claim about the world and no amount of discussion will settle it.

jim_asheville said:

It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.

Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale.

Closing the loop on my own question.

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