Dr.AddMedPHL said:

Start from the measurement rather than the conclusion.

Coming at Dr.AddMedPHL’s question from a different direction. 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.

That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.

The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason. In three months the reason is what you will have forgotten, and the reason is what makes the record worth having.

Following on from Dr.AddMedPHL — and this may be the naive question:

What the dose-response curve actually looks like above 1.7mg, because the trial means hide how few people account for the extra loss?

dave_SLC said:

Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason.

Pushing back on dave_SLC here. Pushing back on the consensus forming here. Consistency is not the same as correctness, and a board that agrees with itself quickly is usually agreeing with the first person who sounded certain.

dave_SLC said:

Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason.

Correct as far as it goes. The part it does not cover is what to do when the honest answer is "not enough data", which is more often than anyone likes.

That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.