Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. 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.

TinaHashiRN said:

The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.

Adding a me-too, because a thread of one person's experience is not much use. Nothing to add that would improve it.

TinaHashiRN said:

The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.

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

One concrete data point for the thread. Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look. It is a small discipline and it changes what you notice.

Moderator note: the sourcing question belongs in the vendor section and has been split out.