MHRA statements, read directly

MHRA statements, read directly Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did.

Asking about MHRA statements directly, because I have read four threads on it and each answered a slightly different question.

The version I want answered is the narrow one: given the method stated below, is the result within what anyone else has seen? I am not asking what it means yet.

Method, numbers and the two assumptions I am aware of making are below. If the assumptions are wrong that is more useful to me than agreement.

Right — I had this wrong and I am glad to have read it before it mattered.

Since MHRA statements keeps coming up, it should probably be a maintained page rather than a recurring thread. I am happy to draft it if someone with more direct experience will review it.

Worth separating two things that post #38 runs together.

Worth stating the null on MHRA statements before we explain it: the observation may be nothing. That possibility deserves a sentence and usually does not get one.

Practical answer on MHRA statements, since the theoretical one is upthread: do the simplest check first, write down the result, and only then decide whether the complicated explanation is needed. It usually is not.

Reading back through, this was answered upthread and I missed it. My fault.

Thank you for the correction. I would rather find out here than later.

Where the MHRA statements reasoning breaks down for me is the step from the group result to the individual case. That step is almost never argued for.