Dr.PathRoch said:

The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the…

Pushing back on Dr.PathRoch 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.

Dr.PathRoch said:

The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the…

Agreed, and the size of the effect matters as much as its existence. Something real and small gets treated here as though it were real and decisive.

Dr.PathRoch said:

The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the…

This is exactly what I could not find anywhere else. Taking it to my next appointment.

Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. It helps to ask what evidence would change your mind before you look at any. If nothing would, the discussion is not about evidence, and it is better to say so early than to spend nine posts discovering it.

Closing the loop on my own question.

Follow-up: I read the paper rather than the summary and the qualifier I was missing was in the second paragraph of the results.