 Rosenstock, Bruner, and O’Connor argue that the Zollman effect only afflicts epistemically “hard” problems. It’s only because the difference between our two treatments is so hard to discern from the data that the Zollman effect is a concern. If the new treatment were much more noticeably superior to the old one, say a .7 chance of success rather than the .501 we imagined above, wouldn’t there be little chance of its superiority going unnoticed?