Finder decay is returned in claims

[kingofaces]

In my view we already know what causes variations in height or weight, namely genetic or biology.

I'll start with this one as a reminder that we generally do not know these things ahead of time. This kinds of analyses were used to describe differences well before we even knew much about modern genetics. Anytime we study a new species, we're literally dealing with a black box where all we can do is as I described, treat them the same aside from a treatment of interest. Even if it is a known species, we aren't creating some grand model of all its known biology and then add in a new comparison in experiments. That's a waste of resources. That's why we have control groups that account for all the background variation we're not interested in for a particular comparison instead (in this case, finders that had no additional probes or amp decay). This kind of basic analysis is how we deal with black boxes where you only know inputs and outputs.

In terms of cost, my observation is that finder+excavator+refiner

I addressed this a bit above, but this is why I stress the importance of experimental design. Long-term logs are great from bookkeeping/accounting, but they generally aren't great for pointed analyses to figure out whether X affects Y. That's where terms like correlation without causation, confounding, etc. come into play, and is a common problem on these forums because even though most mean well, many don't have training in statistics to avoid those pitfalls.

Dsec30 per 100 drops unamped, ores 2ped per drop tt, gives a finder cost of 3,96 ped, with a MU of 1.19 ped

In this case, you definitely can convert a pre-amped finder's MU to a sort of amp equivalent MU for comparison. If you have a DSEC30 at 130%, that comes out to about 101.2% for ore and 103.28% for enmatter in terms of the MU you pay for the amping effect. That is less than the cost of most amps, and why many buy them. They look more expensive if you throw in decay as additional MU, but there isn't any data to suggest that should be done.

So, tell me, are you confident enough on your data such as I'd invest potentially thousands of $ in this paradigm? Or, what should be my position, go with something which I obviously don't understand or take the safest approach, which in this case means denying it?

I go with what the data show, and I mentioned before that I scrutinized this heavily in part because I used to think as you do. At the end of the day, I'm just presenting the data appropriately, and beyond that, people are going to mine however they decide how they want to mine. Personally though, I use scientific testing to inform my mining and sold my UL finder years ago to switch to only L finders while still getting around 98-100% TT since I've been keeping my in-forum log post. That isn't a thousands of dollars investment though, which is getting into hyperbole again. If anything, I freed up ped tied in an UL finder, and paid less MU overall due to the cheaper cost of L Terramasters compared to paying extra MU on enhancers to reach the same depth.

If someone is utterly convinced MA did something entirely different, even though current data shows otherwise and even though MA has hunting working very similar (weapon decay + ammo + amp decay = base TT), they are welcome to repeat this test. Independent replication by someone else is the next step in any experiment at this point. Right now, the only other data out there that I'm aware of that says finder decay might not be returned also came from me. In the preliminary testing I did with lower decay finders, the sample sizes needed to come close to claiming no difference with that low decay was much higher (pushing closer to 1000 claims rather than only 100). That's what we call a false negative or statistical power problem, which is the difference between just failing to detect a difference and demonstrating a difference is not likely occurring.

 

[kingofaces]

I think i found this info elsewhere few years ago which is why i preferred f105 over f106. tiered f105 is damn near the terramasters in decay for lil extra

That definitely works if you're just using the base finder without enhancers, though decay doesn't really add that much of an "amping" effect. I know with the F-106, the breakeven point for where the L Terramasters have less MU than F-106 enhancers is around TM3 and above, so the 105's breakeven point would be with a bit shallower finders with that. If you're content with the base depth though, then there's no reason to avoid MU entirely and go UL then. That's why the UL TM8 actually does have a positive ROI, though how much that is worth is a whole different can of worms.