A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:

Did your prescriber agree with that reading, and if not what was their objection?

sarah_TO said:

If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.

I am going to disagree with the direction of travel here. The thread has converged on the tidiest answer rather than the best-supported one, and those are not the same thing.

sarah_TO said:

If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.

That is right, and it stops being right at the edges. The general case is well behaved; the interesting cases in this thread are all at the boundary where the general case breaks.

sarah_TO said:

If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.

Saving this. It is the first explanation that did not require me to already understand it. Printing the relevant bit and taking it with me.

From the other side of the consultation, briefly. It helps to say which part of this you are uncertain about. A precise question gets a precise answer; a general one gets everybody’s favourite anecdote.

If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.