lucas_SP_BR said:

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

Pushing back on lucas_SP_BR here. I think the framing smuggles in the conclusion. Ask it the other way round and the obvious answer reverses, which usually means the question is doing the work.

Closing the loop on my own question.

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.

lucas_SP_BR said:

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

Saving this. It is the first explanation that did not require me to already understand it. Printing the relevant bit and taking it with me.

From the other side of the consultation, briefly. Most of what circulates confidently in this community traces back to one summary of one study, and the qualifier was dropped somewhere in the third retelling.

Old thread, but it comes up first when you search for this, so it is worth updating. For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine. Half the figures circulating in this community trace back to a secondary summary that dropped a qualifier.