[muawiyah]

Sure it does ~ if, for example, the "error" that elicits the "fix" occurs every 125 years, but you do all your measurements BETWEEN "fixes", you missed the frequency of the "fix" and have not accounted for it at all.

Going the other way ~ if the errors eliciting the fixes occur at a high rate, e.g. 100 per second under Condition A, and 1 per hour under Condition B, with Condition A and Condition B consisting of exogenous situations that cannot be controlled, you have a real mess on your hands.

As the number of conditions increases, your inability to estimate the rate of change simply steps off the planet.

Time for grants and graduate students hungry for fame and fortune I tell you.

[mlo]

"Sure it does ~ if, for example, the "error" that elicits the "fix" occurs every 125 years, but you do all your measurements BETWEEN "fixes", you missed the frequency of the "fix" and have not accounted for it at all."

Read what I am saying. I said if the rate was established independent of assumptions about the mechanism, then new knowledge about the mechanism doesn't change the rate.

You are disagreeing, then just assuming that the rate was established by studying the mechanism! That doesn't disagree with what I said. But you can't just assume the rate was established that way. I doubt very much that it did.