newstart_MO said:Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.
Coming at newstart_MO’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.
The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason. In three months the reason is what you will have forgotten, and the reason is what makes the record worth having.
One thing that is still open after newstart_MO’s answer:
Did your prescriber agree with that reading, and if not what was their objection?
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View Resultsbri_stats said:Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason.
I read this differently from bri_stats, on substance rather than tone. The counter-case has not been addressed. Somebody upthread described the situation that does not fit, and the thread moved on rather than engaging with it, which is the failure mode this board is supposed to avoid.
Closing the loop on my own question.
Update, and it is the boring outcome: nothing was wrong. The measurement I was reading had moved less than its own week-to-week variation, which somebody said upthread and I did not believe.