DanielChem_CHI 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…

I read this differently. The confidence in this thread is running ahead of the evidence, and I would rather the uncertainty were stated than smoothed over because it is unsatisfying.

DanielChem_CHI 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…

True, and it depends on a baseline nobody has stated. Without knowing where someone started, the same number can be an excellent result or a disappointing one.

DanielChem_CHI 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…

This is exactly what I could not find anywhere else.

From the other side of the consultation, briefly. The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked. Narrow it and it becomes tractable; leave it broad and the thread will produce nine confident and incompatible replies.

Reporting back.

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