anna.melb_AU said:It helps to say which part of this you are uncertain about.
Coming at anna.melb_AU’s question from a different direction. If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not. That is answerable; arguing about which sounds more plausible is not.
One concrete data point for the thread. 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.
A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
What would you measure differently if you were starting again?
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View Resultswendy_avl said:Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason.
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. I think the framing smuggles in the conclusion. Ask it the other way round and the obvious answer reverses, which usually means the question is doing the work.
Happy to go further on any of that.
wendy_avl said:Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason.
Right, and the exception is worth naming rather than left implied, because the exception is where people get into trouble.