paige_pharma said:

It helps to say which part of this you are uncertain about.

There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. 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.

Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath. An edited-away mistake is invisible to the next person who makes it.

One thing that is still open after paige_pharma’s answer:

What did you change at the same time, and can you separate the two now?

Dr.PeteFamMed said:

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

Pushing back on Dr.PeteFamMed here. 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.

Dr.PeteFamMed said:

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

That is right, and it stops being right at the edges. The general case is well behaved; the interesting cases in this thread are all at the boundary where the general case breaks.

Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.