Aggregate verification data across the directory, with caveats

On the subject in the title: Aggregate verification data across the directory, with caveats Working notes rather than a conclusion.

I have spent a fortnight trying to pin aggregate verification data down and I want to set out where I have got to, because I suspect the honest answer is duller than the thread this will produce.

What I have: a consistent observation across a small number of cases, collected the same way each time. What I do not have: any controlled comparison, or any reason to think my cases are representative.

The specific question is whether the pattern survives once the obvious confounder is removed. I cannot remove it with what I have.

Post #11 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.

I have no financial interest in anything named in this thread and I want to say so before I comment on aggregate verification data, because it is the sort of subject where it matters.

Where I part company with post #22, and it is a narrow parting.

I changed my mind about aggregate verification data after someone here asked me for the source and I could not produce one. That is worth saying out loud because it is the ordinary way it happens.

Worth separating two things that post #26 runs together.

A note on scope: what I am saying about aggregate verification data applies to the case in the first post and I would not extend it further without checking.

Adding thanks rather than a view. I do not have a view worth the space.

Posting my aggregate verification data numbers with the method attached so they can be discounted properly. Uncontrolled, unblinded, and collected by someone who wanted a particular answer.

Verification is about documents and measurements. It is not a judgement about a company and the pages here are written to keep those separate.

Happy to expand any of that if it is the useful part.

Bookmarking this. I will come back when I have something worth adding.

Trying to state the aggregate verification data position in a way that someone who disagrees would recognise as fair, because I do not think the version in this thread passes that test.