Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself. Four weeks is the usual minimum for anything pharmacological on this board, and two weeks of data has told you almost nothing.

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

What would you measure differently if you were starting again?

DoseLogDan said:

If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself.

There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated. Those two sets overlap less than the confident tone of most write-ups suggests, and the second set is where nearly all the disagreement on this board comes from.

OP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.

For the archive: it took about six weeks rather than the two I expected, and the difference between those two numbers was the whole of my problem.

NurseLeah_Nash said:

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

Agreeing with NurseLeah_Nash, and the qualification matters more than the agreement. Yes, and the corollary is less popular: if the reasoning holds, it also holds where it produces an answer we do not like.