Found a vendor with insanely cheap prices - too good to be true? — my results so far

Dr.Martinez said:

Update: approved on the third attempt after a peer-to-peer.

Same experience, arrived at from the opposite direction.

Dr.Martinez said:

Update: approved on the third attempt after a peer-to-peer.

Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the correction. That is slower than asserting, and it is the only version that survives being wrong.

Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the same conditions. Nobody wants that answer and it is still the answer.

Worth separating that from cost and coverage, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.

One thing that is still open after Dr.Martinez’s answer:

Did your prescriber agree with that reading, and if not what was their objection?

jason_paloalto said:

The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the…

I am going to disagree with the direction of travel here. The thread has converged on the tidiest answer rather than the best-supported one, and those are not the same thing.