This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
On consistent declarations, the part that usually goes wrong is that the question is asked as though it has one answer. It has a range, and the width of the range is the interesting bit.
If you can post the two or three numbers you are working from, several people here will check the arithmetic rather than argue about the conclusion.
On post #90 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Import restrictions by jurisdiction: what is legal to import for personal use varies enormously by country. Some jurisdictions are quite permissive; others are not. Checking your own country's rules before ordering is prudent.
I would rather this thread reach "we do not know" about consistent declarations than reach a confident answer that nobody can support when asked.
Anyone deciding whether a delay is a problem should ask what would change if they waited another week. Usually the answer is nothing.
The answer changed when I changed how I was measuring, which was informative.
Confirming post #96 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
The useful distinction on consistent declarations is between what was measured and what was inferred from it. Both end up in the same sentence and only one of them has error bars.
Fine by me. I had wanted a stronger conclusion and there is not one available.
Taking post #96 at face value and following it one step further.
Customs outcomes are not predictable at the level of an individual parcel. What is predictable is that consistent, accurate declarations correlate with fewer interventions, and that the same route behaves differently in different months.
I am reporting what happened, not recommending it.
Acknowledging rather than arguing. The reasoning holds as far as I can follow it.
Two claims get bundled together under consistent declarations and they need separating. The descriptive one — this is what was observed — is usually well supported. The causal one — this is why — usually is not.
Almost every disagreement in threads like this one dissolves once you say which of the two you are making.
The arithmetic in post #102 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
Document outcomes rather than forecasting them. A forecast in this category reads as reassurance and is not one.
A request rather than an answer: could whoever has the primary source for consistent declarations post it? I have seen the claim three times this month and each version had lost a qualifier.
Where the consistent declarations reasoning breaks down for me is the step from the group result to the individual case. That step is almost never argued for.
Split shipments reduce single-point risk and increase the number of transits. Which trade is right depends on what you are protecting against.
The reasoning is more useful than the number, which is why I have shown it.
Narrowing post #106, because the general version has more than one answer.
Peak periods and public holidays affect this more than any other factor and are entirely predictable in advance.
I would put the burden of proof on the interesting explanation, not the dull one.
Everything in post #104 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
I think the consistent declarations question is answerable and has not been answered, which is a more optimistic position than most of this thread.
Confirming post #106 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
Document outcomes rather than forecasting them. A forecast in this category reads as reassurance and is not one.
Practical note on consistent declarations: write down what you expect before you look. The number of times I have found what I went looking for is higher than chance would allow.
What I want from this consistent declarations thread is the list of things that would need to be true for the claim to hold. If we can write that list, we can check it.
Anyone deciding whether a delay is a problem should ask what would change if they waited another week. Usually the answer is nothing.
It is the kind of thing that is obvious once and never again.
Post #111 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
Import restrictions by jurisdiction: what is legal to import for personal use varies enormously by country. Some jurisdictions are quite permissive; others are not. Checking your own country's rules before ordering is prudent.
Adding the measurement that post #111 says would settle it.
Customs outcomes are not predictable at the level of an individual parcel. What is predictable is that consistent, accurate declarations correlate with fewer interventions, and that the same route behaves differently in different months.
Posting my consistent declarations numbers with the method attached so they can be discounted properly. Uncontrolled, unblinded, and collected by someone who wanted a particular answer.
Border outcomes are not predictable at the level of an individual parcel. What is predictable is that consistent, accurate declarations correlate with fewer interventions.
It reads as pedantry until the day it does not.
I would be cautious about generalising from the consistent declarations example above. It is a good example. It is one example.
Post #119 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Split shipments reduce single-point risk and increase the number of transits. Which trade is right depends on what you are protecting against.