MASHdoc_SA said:

The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.

Coming at MASHdoc_SA’s question from a different direction. Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the correction. That is slower than asserting, and it is the only version that survives being wrong.

Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. One practical note: write down what you did and when, before you need it. Reconstructing a timeline from memory three months later is how people end up unable to answer the one question that would have resolved it.

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

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

PeptideChemSF said:

One practical note: write down what you did and when, before you need it.

Pushing back on PeptideChemSF here. 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.

PeptideChemSF said:

One practical note: write down what you did and when, before you need it.

That holds where the measurement is reliable. Where it is noisy — and a lot of what gets tracked here is noisy — the same reasoning produces confident nonsense.