This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1 · go to the accepted answer.
I have three months of notes on Trust level 3 requirements and the honest summary is that the trend is real and the week-to-week numbers are noise. I nearly drew the opposite conclusion from the first fortnight.
Confirming post #29 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
Worth saying publicly: stepping back cleanly and handing over is a service. Documents with an absent maintainer go wrong quietly, which is the worst way for them to go wrong.
Saving this. It is the version I will quote when the question comes round again.
If you are new and reading this thread for the answer to Trust level 3 requirements: the answer is conditional, the conditions are in the third reply, and the rest of the thread is worth skipping.
Thank you for announcing it in advance rather than after. The number of places that do the reverse is remarkable.
I would want a second opinion before relying on that.
Post #34 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
Second-hand on Trust level 3 requirements, so weight it accordingly — someone whose method I trust told me this and I have not verified it myself.
Post #37 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.
The rare case here is the one that costs somebody a week, though, and the common case costs everyone ten seconds. I think the trade is clearly correct.
Worth stating the null on Trust level 3 requirements before we explain it: the observation may be nothing. That possibility deserves a sentence and usually does not get one.
Nobody has said the unglamorous part of Trust level 3 requirements yet, so: most of the variation is explained by things that are boring to write about and easy to check.
Coming back to post #40, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
The edit is clearer. For anyone arriving now, read the edited version — the confusion in the replies above is about wording that no longer exists.
The disagreement above is smaller than it looks once the terms are fixed.
Post #42 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Trust level 3 requirements is well covered in the tag pages, and the older discussions are better than the recent ones because they were argued out properly. Worth twenty minutes before adding to this one.
No disagreement from me. Posting only so the question does not look ignored.
The confident answers on Trust level 3 requirements and the well-sourced answers are not the same answers, which is the most useful thing I have learned reading this category.
Distinguishing three things in the Trust level 3 requirements discussion that keep getting used interchangeably: the observation, the proposed mechanism, and the recommendation that gets attached to both.
An update on my earlier Trust level 3 requirements post: the pattern held for another six weeks and then stopped, which I did not predict and cannot explain.
Taking post #51 at face value and following it one step further.
The rare case here is the one that costs somebody a week, though, and the common case costs everyone ten seconds. I think the trade is clearly correct.
Adding a null result on Trust level 3 requirements. I looked, carefully, and found nothing, and null results deserve posting precisely because they never are.
Building on post #55 rather than restating it.
Worth saying publicly: stepping back cleanly and handing over is a service. Documents with an absent maintainer go wrong quietly, which is the worst way for them to go wrong.
Coming back to post #55, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
Small methodological point on Trust level 3 requirements: repeating a measurement is cheap and resolves most of what is being argued about here at no cost to anyone.
Marking my place. If it changes for me I will come back and say so.