Do you see ways for this sort of change to be decision relevant?
Nevermind. I think the model as is makes sense because it is more general. One can always specify a smaller probability of the intervention having no effect, and then account for other factors in the distribution of the positive effect.
However, there are costs to greater configurability, and we opted for less configurability here. Though I could see a reasonable person having gone the other way.
Right. If it is not super easy to add, then I guess it is not worth it.
Thanks for the clarifications!
Nevermind. I think the model as is makes sense because it is more general. One can always specify a smaller probability of the intervention having no effect, and then account for other factors in the distribution of the positive effect.
Right. If it is not super easy to add, then I guess it is not worth it.