[usgroup]

Well no because it’s talking about either a fixed sample size or stopping when a % total is reached. Neither imply a favourable p-value necessarily.

I think the author means to say that it’s two methods incidentally equivalent in the data they collect that may draw different conclusions based on their initial assumptions. Question is how do you make coherent sense of it.

At level 1 depth it’s insightful.

At level 2 depth it’s a straw man.

At level 3 depth, just keep drinking until you’re back at level 1 depth.

[tech_ken]

> The other ... decided he would not stop until he had data indicating a rate of cures definitely greater than 60%

I believe that "definitely greater than 60%" is supposed to imply that the researcher is stopping when the p-value of their HA (theta>=60%) is below alpha, so an optional stopping (ie. "p-hacking") situation.