Pooling does not make absence reachable either¶

The registered pooled estimate is sharper than any one cell, so it was the natural home for the negative readings. Simulated the same way, H1 pooled over openstack, qt with every half one equally weighted stratum (planned changes [814, 995, 1784, 1497]): a true null reads absent 0.040 of the time at 97.5% and 0.145 at 95% (decomposition-sensitivity-pooled.json). Chromium would add a third organization and narrow the interval by roughly a further fifth, which does not change the picture. At this test window, 0.01 is not a resolvable equivalence bound.

Proposed, not yet registered: anchor the negative readings to the design's own resolution. A cell is bounded when its interval's upper bound lies below the effect the sensitivity analysis says that cell detects, a number fixed now, before any test data (Lakens, Scheel and Isager 2018 list "the effect the study was designed to detect" among the justifications for an equivalence bound). The substantive SESOI stays reported beside it. A null then reads "no effect as large as this design was built to detect", which is what the design can actually support.