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.

KevinCompounds said:

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

This matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so out loud. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.

KevinCompounds said:

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

Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. It helps to say which part of this you are uncertain about. A precise question gets a precise answer; a general one gets everybody’s favourite anecdote.

The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. 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.

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

What would you measure differently if you were starting again?