PurityPaulOR said:

If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.

Pushing back on PurityPaulOR here. 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.

Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath. An edited-away mistake is invisible to the next person who makes it.

mike.trainer_LA said:

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.

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.

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

How would you tell the difference between that and the alternative explanation?

Reporting back.

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.