Review: a draft on reconstitution arithmetic, with objections — one year on posts 31–52

Genuine question rather than a rhetorical one: has anyone here actually observed draft on reconstitution arithmetic, as opposed to read about it? The thread is long and I cannot tell.

Same experience here, different supplier, so it is at least not unique to one of them.

The arithmetic in post #31 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.

A review date is a commitment rather than a formality, and a shorter cycle for a fast-moving subject is the whole point of setting it deliberately.

Where the review finds the content is right but the framing overstates it, that is the most valuable catch available at this stage.

That is all I can say without guessing.

Taking post #33 at face value and following it one step further.

Nothing in a maintained document is medical advice and the review should confirm the page says so where it matters rather than only in a footer.

Post #34 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.

Check the arithmetic in every worked example by hand. A wrong worked example is worse than no example and survives longer.

Agreed on draft on reconstitution arithmetic, with one qualification that I think matters. The reasoning holds for the case as described. Change the starting assumption and it does not, and the starting assumption is the part nobody states.

A methods point on draft on reconstitution arithmetic rather than a substantive one: if the comparison is not like for like, the difference you are measuring is the difference in method.

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

Objections are genuinely wanted at this stage, because a bad promotion is much harder to undo than a bad reply.

The reasoning is more useful than the number, which is why I have shown it.

What I want from this draft on reconstitution arithmetic thread is the list of things that would need to be true for the claim to hold. If we can write that list, we can check it.

Post #40 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.

Second maintainers matter. A single maintainer is a single point of failure and every document here that went stale had one.

If anyone can point at the primary source I would be grateful.

Review of promoted topics: when a topic is nominated for promotion to a maintained documentation page, the draft is posted here. Community review happens before promotion. Objections are welcome.

The four criteria are that the question recurs, that the content is correct and sourced or labelled as community practice, that somebody will be named as maintainer with a review date, and that no unresolved substantive objection stands.