nelsond25

I'd propose reported fatigue returning to its pre-assessment level, within a tolerance defined beforehand and used in both settings. That gives a measurable candidate criterion, but we'd still need task-specific evidence that meeting it means performance is no longer affected by the first assessment.

I hadn't specified an interval, and I wouldn't choose a fixed number of hours without knowing the task. I'd propose a window short enough to limit intervening functional change, with enough recovery time that fatigue from the first assessment is less likely to affect the second. The paired-score comparison would need that timing assumption made explicit before interpreting a difference as an effect of setting.

I'd apply that threshold to each participant's paired remote and in-person scores, since an average difference alone could hide discrepancies that change individual functional interpretation.