The topic list is dense — is that deliberate?

The opening post and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.

Where I have landed on topic list, having got it wrong once in public: the direction is clear, the magnitude is not, and anyone quoting a precise magnitude has borrowed it from somewhere that did not measure it.

Two people in this thread mean different things by topic list and are disagreeing about the definition while believing they are disagreeing about the facts. Worth pausing to define it.

The counter-argument is that a review date on a topic implies a maintenance promise nobody has made. A document carries one because somebody signed up to it.

On balance I think that is right, and I would not bet much on it.

The bit of topic list that nobody enjoys is that the answer changes depending on what you are trying to decide with it. Say what the decision is and the thread will converge.

That would also be the fastest way for a new member to understand what R6 actually catches, which is narrower than people assume from the text.

Nobody has said the unglamorous part of topic list yet, so: most of the variation is explained by things that are boring to write about and easy to check.

Fine by me. I had wanted a stronger conclusion and there is not one available.

Post #84 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.

Topic list is well covered in the tag pages, and the older discussions are better than the recent ones because they were argued out properly. Worth twenty minutes before adding to this one.