lisa_labSD said:

If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself.

Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. The counter-case has not been addressed. Somebody upthread described the situation that does not fit, and the thread moved on rather than engaging with it, which is the failure mode this board is supposed to avoid.

lisa_labSD said:

If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself.

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.

If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.

lisa_labSD said:

If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself.

This is exactly what I could not find anywhere else. I will report back once I have actually tried it.

Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not. That is answerable; arguing about which sounds more plausible is not.

BariatricNurseD said:

If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.

This is my experience too, for whatever a second data point is worth. Posting only so the count is not one.