One thing that is still open after mark_tokyo’s answer:

What would you measure differently if you were starting again?

raj_cambridge said:

Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.

I read this differently from raj_cambridge, on substance rather than tone. The objection nobody has made: this only works if the measurement is doing what we assume it is doing, and that assumption has not been tested here.

raj_cambridge said:

Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.

Agreeing with raj_cambridge, 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.

raj_cambridge said:

Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.

This is exactly what I could not find anywhere else. I will report back once I have actually tried it.

Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it. The narrow version usually has an answer; the broad version usually does not, and answering the broad one is how a thread stops being useful.