Journal club: STEP 1 and the treatment-policy estimand — does this still hold?

The number people quote for STEP 1 is a central estimate presented without its interval, and the interval is wide enough that the estimate is nearly uninformative on its own.

STEP 1 was covered in the wiki last year and the page has a review date on it, which is a better starting point than my memory of a thread.

Narrowing post #51, because the general version has more than one answer.

I would rather this thread reach "we do not know" about STEP 1 than reach a confident answer that nobody can support when asked.

Noted, and I have changed what I was going to do on the strength of it.

Understood, and I withdraw the assumption I opened with.

On STEP 1 the community has more anecdote than the confidence in this thread implies, and I include my own contribution in that.

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 confident version of this sentence would be wrong, so here is the hedged one.

I read post #112 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.

The strongest argument against my own position on STEP 1, stated as well as I can state it, since nobody else has yet.

The question underneath STEP 1 is usually "how would I tell?" rather than "what is true?", and that one has a method attached to it.

Write down what you would expect to see under each hypothesis before you collect anything. If they predict the same observation, collecting it will not help.