LondonLisa said:

That is right, and it stops being right at the edges.

Mine went the same way, slower. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.

LondonLisa said:

That is right, and it stops being right at the edges.

Coming at LondonLisa’s question from a different direction. 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.

Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. One practical note: write down what you did and when, before you need it. Reconstructing a timeline from memory three months later is how people end up unable to answer the one question that would have resolved it.

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

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

DoseLogDan said:

One practical note: write down what you did and when, before you need it.

Careful with the causal language. Two things moving together in a period when five things changed is not a mechanism, and stating it as one makes the thread less useful to somebody reading it later.