SallyK_inj said:

Agreed, and the size of the effect matters as much as its existence.

This is my experience too, for whatever a second data point is worth. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.

SallyK_inj said:

Agreed, and the size of the effect matters as much as its existence.

Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. 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.

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 SallyK_inj’s answer:

What would you measure differently if you were starting again?

bri_stats said:

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

I read this differently from bri_stats, on substance rather than tone. 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.