A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:

Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?

james_edin said:

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.

Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. Pushing back on the anecdote-stacking. Twenty people reporting the same thing is twenty samples from the same self-selected pool, not twenty independent confirmations.

james_edin said:

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.

True, with the qualification that this is a self-selected group. The people for whom it did not work post less, and that shapes everything we think we know.

james_edin said:

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.

Genuinely useful, thank you. I had the facts and not the framework.

From the other side of the consultation, briefly. 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.