Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. Order of operations matters more than any single choice here: establish a baseline, change one thing, wait long enough for it to express itself, then measure again under the same conditions.

wendy_avl said:

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

Coming at wendy_avl’s question from a different direction. 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 concrete data point for the thread. For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine. Half the figures circulating in this community trace back to a secondary summary that dropped a qualifier.

Following on from wendy_avl — and this may be the naive question:

What did you change at the same time, and can you separate the two now?

Moderator note: the sourcing question belongs in the vendor section and has been split out. Tagging this one for the weekly digest.