labquiet_amy said:Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason.
I am going to disagree with the direction of travel here. The thread has converged on the tidiest answer rather than the best-supported one, and those are not the same thing.
labquiet_amy said:Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason.
True, and it depends on a baseline nobody has stated. Without knowing where someone started, the same number can be an excellent result or a disappointing one.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
labquiet_amy said:Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason.
That reframing is the part I needed. Adding it to my notes with a link back to this thread.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsAdding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. Take it one variable at a time. Almost every unanswerable question in these threads is unanswerable because three things changed in the same fortnight, and no amount of subsequent argument can untangle them after the fact.
Reporting back.
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. Posting it because threads without a follow-up are half a thread.