EndoResFellow said:

The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked.

There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false. If nothing would look different, it is not a claim about the world and no amount of discussion will settle it.

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.

Following on from EndoResFellow — and this may be the naive question:

Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?

PharmacoVig_BOS said:

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

I do not accept the framing. The question has been narrowed to the version that has a tidy answer, and the part that was dropped is the part the OP actually asked about.

Happy to go further on any of that.

PharmacoVig_BOS said:

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

No disagreement, though the timescale matters more than the mechanism here. Most of what looks like a difference in kind turns out to be a difference in how long somebody waited.