Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. 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.

I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.

Following on from Dr.NateNeph — and this may be the naive question:

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

TirzTom said:

For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.

Pushing back on TirzTom here. I would resist the confidence. Half of what this board was certain about two years ago has since been quietly dropped, and nobody went back to correct the threads.

TirzTom said:

For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.

No disagreement with TirzTom. One condition attached. Yes, and the corollary is less popular: if the reasoning holds, it also holds where it produces an answer we do not like.

That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.

TirzTom said:

For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.

That reframing is the part I needed.