VendorMark said:I would put less weight on the timescale, because two months of anything is not enough to distinguish a trend from a wobble.
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. 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.
Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.
VendorMark said:I would put less weight on the timescale, because two months of anything is not enough to distinguish a trend from a wobble.
That is right, and it stops being right at the edges. The general case is well behaved; the interesting cases in this thread are all at the boundary where the general case breaks.
Closing the loop on my own question.
Update — I was wrong in the opening post, specifically about the direction. Correcting it here rather than editing it away.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsThis was answered several pages up and is worth repeating rather than re-litigating:
For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine. Half the figures circulating in this community trace back to a secondary summary that dropped a qualifier.
Worth restating a point from upthread for anyone joining at this page:
Worth saying that the confident version of this is more useful to the person writing it than to the person reading it.