james_edin said:

Correct, and worth adding that it is reversible.

Same experience, arrived at from the opposite direction.

james_edin said:

Correct, and worth adding that it is reversible.

There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the correction. That is slower than asserting, and it is the only version that survives being wrong.

The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number. A figure without its method cannot be checked, and an unchecked figure is how this community accumulates folklore.

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

What would you measure differently if you were starting again?

LabKate said:

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

Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. Not convinced. The evidence being cited is consistent with the conclusion and also consistent with two other conclusions nobody has ruled out.