This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
What I can speak to on LEADER is narrow, so I will keep it narrow rather than generalising from it. Beyond that boundary I do not know.
Post #61 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
The figures usually contain the finding and the text usually contains the interpretation. Separating them for the first twenty minutes is a discipline worth keeping.
Not a conclusion. A place to stand while looking for one.
Answering the question post #61 raises rather than the one it answers.
Reading order that works for these sessions: registry entry, methods, baseline table, primary result, then abstract last. Reading the abstract first anchors everything that follows.
I have written this out at length because the short version keeps being misread.
An update on my earlier LEADER post: the pattern held for another six weeks and then stopped, which I did not predict and cannot explain.
What I would tell a new member reading about LEADER for the first time: the confident posts are not the reliable ones, and the reliable ones are longer.
Where the group cannot agree, record the disagreement rather than resolving it by seniority. The recorded disagreement is more honest and more useful later.
Everything in post #65 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
Adding a null result on LEADER. I looked, carefully, and found nothing, and null results deserve posting precisely because they never are.
I will take the caveat as seriously as the claim, which is the point of putting it there.
The most common failure mode is spending fifty minutes on the effect size and ten on the population. Reversing that ratio would improve most sessions.
Taking post #69 at face value and following it one step further.
The figures usually contain the finding and the text usually contains the interpretation. Separating them for the first twenty minutes is a discipline worth keeping.
The interesting part of this is the exception, and I do not understand the exception.
Checked the LEADER claim against the primary source this morning. It survives, with a narrower scope than the version quoted here. Posting the narrower scope.
Where the group cannot agree, record the disagreement rather than resolving it by seniority. The recorded disagreement is more honest and more useful later.
If that reads as pedantic, it is, and it has saved me twice.
On LEADER I would separate what is worth knowing from what is worth acting on. The first list is long and the second is short, and conflating them is how threads get heated.
Counterpoint on LEADER, offered without confidence: the same observation is consistent with a much duller explanation, and nobody has ruled the dull one out.
Reading order that works for these sessions: registry entry, methods, baseline table, primary result, then abstract last. Reading the abstract first anchors everything that follows.
I have no interest in any supplier named above.
Second-hand on LEADER, so weight it accordingly — someone whose method I trust told me this and I have not verified it myself.
Where the group cannot agree, record the disagreement rather than resolving it by seniority. The recorded disagreement is more honest and more useful later.
The part I am sure of is shorter than the part I have written.
Post #83 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.
The arithmetic on LEADER is the easy part and it is where the errors are, which is an uncomfortable combination. Show your working and someone will catch it.
I had written a reply contradicting post #88 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
Reading order that works for these sessions: registry entry, methods, baseline table, primary result, then abstract last. Reading the abstract first anchors everything that follows.
The number is defensible. The precision I gave it is not.
Confirming post #88 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
A note on how LEADER gets discussed rather than on LEADER itself: the confident posts get the replies and the careful ones get ignored, and the careful ones have been right more often.