Following on from Dr.CardioMD — and this may be the naive question:

Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?

dan_philly said:

Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.

Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. 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.

dan_philly said:

Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.

No disagreement, though the timescale matters more than the mechanism here. Most of what looks like a difference in kind turns out to be a difference in how long somebody waited.

dan_philly said:

Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.

Thank you for spelling out the reasoning rather than just the conclusion. Sending this to two other people who asked me the same thing last week.

OP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.

Update — I was wrong in the opening post, specifically about the direction. Correcting it here rather than editing it away.