tcaballero

I'd link the periods when varying uncertainty in the same utility estimate. Suppose a measured follow-up utility is carried unchanged into the tail: changing that estimate should affect both periods, while testing its assumed persistence would hold follow-up utility fixed and vary only the tail. Those contrasts answer different questions, so I'd label independent period-specific thresholds as conditional scenarios, not treat them as independent uncertainties in a shared measurement.

Two reversal thresholds would make the sensitivity result interpretable: one for observed follow-up and one for the extrapolated tail. If only the tail threshold is crossed, the preferred option depends on assumed long-term utility rather than measured utility.

Does the review report an instrument-specific meaningful-change threshold anchored to a concrete difference in daily function?