What to change
Four things it refuses
The claims a reader will want from this record and the reasons each of them is not available, including the two that the data very nearly supports.
Four claims this record will not make. Two of them are refused because the data is silent. Two are refused because the data is suggestive and not sufficient, which is the harder case.
One: nothing about health or feeling
The sheet asked how long people stayed and what moved them. It did not ask how anybody felt, about anything, at any point.
There is therefore no quantity in this record that bears on wellbeing, comfort in the ordinary sense, or any physical consequence of anything. A short sitting is not evidence of discomfort. A long one is not evidence of its absence. The six seat endings say nothing about chairs beyond the fact that six times somebody got up. When the same room performs differently across the day, managers can Monitask time and attendance tools and compare time records with the physical conditions logged here instead of guessing from presence alone.
This is the one refusal with no borderline cases. The instrument has no field, so the claim has no source, and any page here that seemed to edge toward such a statement would simply be wrong. The wider design and work context can also be checked through UNSW Sydney.
Two: no recommendation about furniture
Six endings of two hundred and twenty-five, and the obvious reading — furniture does not matter much — is not available.
The reason is structural. A bad chair produces a move only if somebody gets up. If people stay, the record shows a long sitting and no ending, which is exactly what a good chair would produce.
The record cannot tell a dwelling full of adequate seating from a dwelling full of poor seating that nobody leaves.
So the six supports a narrow statement — the seat rarely ended a sitting in these nine dwellings — and refuses every wider one, in either direction.
Three: that more places help
This is the first of the two hard refusals, because the claim is intuitive, cheap, and would make a tidy conclusion.
Endings per sitting against place count, across nine homes: a two-place dwelling has the highest rate in the record and a two-place dwelling has the lowest. The six-place dwelling sits mid-table.
Two mechanisms are visible and they cancel. More places means more moving, and every move is an opportunity for a place to be what ends a sitting. Fewer places means more staying, and a dwelling with one viable spot and nothing competing for it generates very few endings at all.
Nine observations cannot separate those, and "not visible here" is a much weaker statement than "not there". The claim is refused, not disproved.
Four: that any of this generalises
Nine dwellings. No sampling procedure. No weighting, because weighting nine cases toward a population is a way of dressing a small number as a large one.
The second refusal inside this one is subtler: the nine weeks were not simultaneous, so seasonal effects are smeared across the record rather than controlled. Two of the nine weeks fall in November and February and contribute nine of the ten darkness endings between them.
A reader wanting a figure that would recur in a tenth home will not find one here. The method page exists so that somebody can go and find out.
The two that are close
The furniture refusal and the place-count refusal are both cases where the data points somewhere and the record declines to follow.
That is a deliberate asymmetry. A claim this record makes should hold in a majority of nine dwellings, rest on at least ten observations, and concern something the sheet asked about. The place-count claim fails the first test. The furniture claim fails the third, because "does seating matter" is a question about quality and the sheet asked about endings.
Applying those rules only where they produce agreeable answers would make them decoration. They are applied here, where they cost the site its two most quotable conclusions.
The refusal that costs most
The place-count refusal, by a distance.
It is the one piece of advice that would follow naturally from everything else on the site, it costs nothing to act on, and a reader who has got this far has probably already drawn it.
The data says: a two-place dwelling has the highest ending rate in the record and a two-place dwelling has the lowest, and the six-place dwelling sits mid-table. Ordered by place count, the rates run 0.54, 0.33, 0.32, 0.38, 0.36, 0.44, 0.42, 0.45, 0.45.
There is no pattern there that nine points could detect, and a strong pattern would be visible to the naked eye in nine points.
What a reader may reasonably do anyway
Nothing on this page prevents anybody from arranging a second place to work in. It is cheap, it is sensible, and the record simply does not show it helping.
The distinction matters because of what happens next. A household that arranges a second place on the strength of advice and finds nothing improves will conclude they have done it wrong. A household that does it because it seems reasonable, knowing that nine logs found no relationship, will conclude nothing about themselves at all.
That is the whole practical value of a refusal: it does not stop anybody doing anything, and it changes what they make of the result.