What steady state means for the decision to escalate posts 31–36

Adding the boring version of steady state, because the interesting version keeps getting posted and the boring one is usually right.

Check the ordinary explanations, in order, and stop when one of them accounts for what you are seeing. Most of the time the second one does.

Before the thread moves on from steady state — what is the sample size behind the claim? I am not being difficult; I have seen the same figure quoted from an n of four and from an n of four hundred.

Concentration and dose get conflated constantly in this subcategory. Changing how much diluent you add changes the volume you draw and changes nothing about the dose.

One more caveat and then I will stop qualifying: the sample selected itself.

Picking up post #31: that is the part I would want checked first.

I keep a log for steady state specifically because my memory of it turned out to be systematically wrong in one direction. Six weeks of notes cost nothing and settled it.

On steady state: the maintained page in the documentation commons covers the general case with citations and a review date, which is more reliable than any reply here including this one.

There is no published evidence about slower escalation because nobody studied it. That means the trials support not going faster and are silent on going slower, which is a different claim from "slower is fine".

I would want the raw data before agreeing with my own summary of it.