Revisiting: What pooling buys you and what it destroys

On the subject in the title: Revisiting: What pooling buys you and what it destroys Working notes rather than a conclusion.

Pooling buys — I have the observation and I do not trust my interpretation of it, so I am posting the observation and holding the interpretation back.

Numbers, method and the conditions under which they were collected are below. Interpret them however they warrant.

Pooling buys is a good example of a question where the honest answer is boring and the interesting answers are unsupported. I would go with boring.

Narrowing post #6, because the general version has more than one answer.

Filing a mild objection to the consensus on pooling buys. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit.

This follows post #11 rather than contradicting it.

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

Answering the question post #15 raises rather than the one it answers.

Double extraction with disagreement resolution is standard and is worth checking for, because single extraction errors are common and non-random.

Stating my assumptions rather than smuggling them in.

Two things can be true about pooling buys at once: the mechanism is plausible and the evidence for the size of the effect is thin. Most of the argument here is people defending the first against attacks on the second.

Narrowing post #55, because the general version has more than one answer.

The practical version of pooling buys is three sentences long. The rigorous version is three pages and reaches the same conclusion with the conditions attached.

Second-hand on pooling buys, so weight it accordingly — someone whose method I trust told me this and I have not verified it myself.