Dr.PainCLE said:Start from the measurement rather than the conclusion.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked. Narrow it and it becomes tractable; leave it broad and the thread will produce nine confident and incompatible replies.
Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look. It is a small discipline and it changes what you notice.
Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.
Following on from Dr.PainCLE — and this may be the naive question:
How would you tell the difference between that and the alternative explanation?
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference Standardsjosh_phd_bmore said:Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.
I read this differently from josh_phd_bmore, on substance rather than tone. The objection nobody has made: this only works if the measurement is doing what we assume it is doing, and that assumption has not been tested here.
josh_phd_bmore said:Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.
Agreed on the substance. I would put less weight on the timescale, because two months of anything is not enough to distinguish a trend from a wobble.