Suggestion: More motivated reference levels for one-prop and one-mean tests

[rhinopotamus]

So I'm thinking about the following modules:

• 11 (is proportion of ulcerated tumors different from 50%)
• 15 (is survival rate / prior surgery rate different from 50%)
• 19 (is math score different from 50)
  In each of these modules, there's a comparison to some kind of baseline number that feels really artificial. Why would we have 50% prior surgery rate in our heads, walking into this analysis? Do we have some kind of evidence that points to 50% being the correct number for ulcerated tumors?

I think it'd be nice to try to dig up some more background information to make a more reasonable specification of what the baseline comparison number is. Like, maybe we look at the CDC statistics on ulcerated melanoma tumors, or something.

Notice btw that the example in 19 is a good example of what I'd like: the value $63,204 is a reasonable number that comes from some kind of reasonable background information.

Of course, this issue may become moot as we find cooler datasets to bake into the modules. Maybe those datasets will come with more reasonable background information.