kate.chem said:

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

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.

kate.chem said:

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

That is correct as far as it goes, and here is where it stops going. Yes, and the corollary is less popular: if the reasoning holds, it also holds where it produces an answer we do not like.

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

kate.chem said:

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

Thank you for spelling out the reasoning rather than just the conclusion. Taking it to my next appointment.

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.

Closing the loop on my own question.

Following up because I said I would. I changed one thing, left everything else alone, and waited the full interval before looking. It resolved, and I cannot prove which half of that did it.