A finding is not a number. It is one number out of a grid of defensible ones, and the grid is computable. Write down every choice the analysis has to make, write the alternative a reasonable analyst would defend for each, and run the whole cross product before you write a sentence. Doing it in that order matters, because once the headline figure is known each alternative stops being assessed on its merits and starts being graded against it.
This pack ships filled in for one story at The Cordell Review, an invented paper, working the food service inspection records of Marleigh State Department of Health, an invented agency. Under the specification the reporter chose, restaurants in the poorest ZIP quartile were ordered closed 2.31 times as often as those in the richest. Seven analyst choices with two or three defensible alternatives each make 648 specifications. Of those, 144 reach 2.0, 553 show some disparity, and 95 reverse the finding.
The median specification gives 1.48, not 2.31, and that gap is invisible from the one number. So is the reason: the denominator carries the result, because the state inspects a poorest-quartile restaurant 11.8 times over seven years against 19.2 in the richest. Switch to a per-facility rate and adjust for chain ownership, both defensible, and the finding lands at 0.97. That is the first thing a press office does, which is a good reason to do it first.
Sensitivity Check