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

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

wendy_avl said:

One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.

I read this differently. The confidence in this thread is running ahead of the evidence, and I would rather the uncertainty were stated than smoothed over because it is unsatisfying.

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

wendy_avl said:

One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.

True, with the qualification that this is a self-selected group. The people for whom it did not work post less, and that shapes everything we think we know.

wendy_avl said:

One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.

This answered a question I did not know how to ask. I will report back once I have actually tried it.

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

Reporting back for the archive rather than for the thread: I did the narrow version of what was suggested, gave it the full interval, and it settled. Posting it because threads without a follow-up are half a thread.