I have some wandering thoughts, inspired by, "more than simply
saying that we could not reject the null hypothesis".
Let's assume that some experiment was thought, a priori, to have
enough power to produce an interesting result. But it failed to.
Was the experiment carried out without hitch? Was protocol
followed? without modification? on the sample that was expected?
(I wonder how many clinical treatment trials have had their results
confounded by the covid epidemic.)
I remember reading of one clinical study which "failed to replicate"
the treatment results of an earlier study; the original authors
complained that the experiment, as PERFORMED, did NOT use the
most important aspects of methods they had recommended. I
concluded that since I was not a clinician, I could not judge whether
the differences should be important.
Were the background conditions what were expected? If the
epidemic disappears, the expected number of Events may not
If the experiment failed to find its interesting result, even though
carried out without obvious problems emerging, then it must be
time to revise the hypothesis (if you are unwilling to abandon it).
Does it need a specific sub-sample or circumstances or some
variation in how something is done ("double the dose")?