What the reference describes.
In frequentist statistics, power is the probability of detecting an effect (i.e. rejecting the null hypothesis) given that some prespecified effect actually exists using a given test in a given context. In typical use, it is a function of the specific test that is used (including the choice of test statistic and significance level), the sample size (more data tends to provide more power), and the effect size (effects or correlations that are large relative to the variability of the data tend to provide more power). More formally, in the case of a simple hypothesis test with two hypotheses, the power of the test is the probability that the test correctly rejects the null hypothesis ( H 0 {\displaystyle H_{0}} ) when the alternative hypothesis ( H 1 {\displaystyle H_{1}} ) is true.
What the process still cannot guarantee.
Underpowered experiments generate unstable estimates and encourage selective attention to large effects.
That is a design criticism of how this research operation may be used, not a claim that the encyclopedia endorses the limitation. In this domain, the general redesign question is: statistical decisions become inspectable, selection-aware computations rather than one-number rituals.
Replace the mechanism.
Optimize sampling plans for precision and actionable outcomes under fixed resource constraints.
Implementation requires a typed scientific claim, explicit operational definitions, controlled access to evidence, an immutable record of relevant transformations, and independent checking appropriate to the kind of assertion. An AI-generated interpretation without those checks would reproduce the underlying failure at greater speed.
What would demonstrate improvement?
Compare adaptive designs against conventional sample-size recipes.
Compare with a defined baseline under matched resources, keep evaluation cases independent of the system under test, and measure both false alarms and undetected errors. Publish any negative or inconclusive result as part of the same investigation record.
Continue across concepts.
Each related title has its own revision-specific Wikipedia source and a separate critical dossier. Crosslinks are exploratory; they do not imply the encyclopedia articles support the proposed replacement.
No single authority.
The reference article establishes the historical and methodological subject under examination. The proposed criticism and replacement must earn their own support through reproducible tests and independent validation. Record disagreements instead of silently overwriting them.
Current Wikipedia article ↗ · Exact reference revision ↗ · Complete source ledger ↗