A pottery workshop once counted a cup as defective only when a crack could be seen in ordinary light. After a retailer returned several cups with fine cracks, the workshop introduced a stronger lamp and required inspectors to turn each cup slowly. The proportion of cups recorded as defective rose. The manager initially blamed the new firing schedule, which had begun in the same week. An engineer warned that two changes had occurred together: the way cups were made and the way they were examined. A rise in recorded defects could therefore reflect poorer production, more sensitive inspection, or both. To separate these explanations, the workshop kept unused cups from the old schedule and selected comparable cups from the new one. Inspectors examined both groups with the same lamp, without being told which schedule had produced each cup. This comparison could reveal a difference between the groups without confusing it with a difference in inspection. It would not, by itself, establish which part of the new schedule caused any difference. The engineer wanted the workshop to improve its process, but insisted that a solution should follow a diagnosis rather than merely follow a disappointing number.