## Analysis report {CausalImpact}
## 
## 
## During the post-intervention period, the response variable had an average value of approx. 6.64. By contrast, in the absence of an intervention, we would have expected an average response of 3.88. The 95% interval of this counterfactual prediction is [2.69, 5.13]. Subtracting this prediction from the observed response yields an estimate of the causal effect the intervention had on the response variable. This effect is 2.77 with a 95% interval of [1.51, 3.96]. For a discussion of the significance of this effect, see below.
## 
## Summing up the individual data points during the post-intervention period (which can only sometimes be meaningfully interpreted), the response variable had an overall value of 299.00. By contrast, had the intervention not taken place, we would have expected a sum of 174.50. The 95% interval of this prediction is [120.87, 231.05].
## 
## The above results are given in terms of absolute numbers. In relative terms, the response variable showed an increase of +71%. The 95% interval of this percentage is [+39%, +102%].
## 
## This means that the positive effect observed during the intervention period is statistically significant and unlikely to be due to random fluctuations. It should be noted, however, that the question of whether this increase also bears substantive significance can only be answered by comparing the absolute effect (2.77) to the original goal of the underlying intervention.
## 
## The probability of obtaining this effect by chance is very small (Bayesian one-sided tail-area probability p = 0.001). This means the causal effect can be considered statistically significant.

## Analysis report {CausalImpact}
## 
## 
## During the post-intervention period, the response variable had an average value of approx. 9.51. In the absence of an intervention, we would have expected an average response of 6.18. The 95% interval of this counterfactual prediction is [0.26, 11.72]. Subtracting this prediction from the observed response yields an estimate of the causal effect the intervention had on the response variable. This effect is 3.33 with a 95% interval of [-2.20, 9.25]. For a discussion of the significance of this effect, see below.
## 
## Summing up the individual data points during the post-intervention period (which can only sometimes be meaningfully interpreted), the response variable had an overall value of 428.00. Had the intervention not taken place, we would have expected a sum of 278.15. The 95% interval of this prediction is [11.86, 527.19].
## 
## The above results are given in terms of absolute numbers. In relative terms, the response variable showed an increase of +54%. The 95% interval of this percentage is [-36%, +150%].
## 
## This means that, although the intervention appears to have caused a positive effect, this effect is not statistically significant when considering the entire post-intervention period as a whole. Individual days or shorter stretches within the intervention period may of course still have had a significant effect, as indicated whenever the lower limit of the impact time series (lower plot) was above zero. The apparent effect could be the result of random fluctuations that are unrelated to the intervention. This is often the case when the intervention period is very long and includes much of the time when the effect has already worn off. It can also be the case when the intervention period is too short to distinguish the signal from the noise. Finally, failing to find a significant effect can happen when there are not enough control variables or when these variables do not correlate well with the response variable during the learning period.
## 
## The probability of obtaining this effect by chance is p = 0.132. This means the effect may be spurious and would generally not be considered statistically significant.

## Initial log joint probability = -4.02776
## Optimization terminated normally: 
##   Convergence detected: relative gradient magnitude is below tolerance

## Initial log joint probability = -2.62488
## Optimization terminated normally: 
##   Convergence detected: relative gradient magnitude is below tolerance

##             ds     yhat yhat_lower yhat_upper
## 401 2017-08-07 5.685472  0.6864452  10.967567
## 402 2017-08-08 6.578210  1.5521184  11.791462
## 403 2017-08-09 6.248853  1.2338648  11.254427
## 404 2017-08-10 5.786098  0.8473032  10.862714
## 405 2017-08-11 5.567692  0.7022517  10.155702
## 406 2017-08-12 3.905032 -1.1035745   8.690154

##             ds     yhat yhat_lower yhat_upper
## 401 2017-08-07 7.164134  -12.14148   26.22302
## 402 2017-08-08 8.376941  -10.00281   28.13020
## 403 2017-08-09 8.301135  -11.10511   28.03236
## 404 2017-08-10 7.581017  -11.68299   26.20226
## 405 2017-08-11 7.172581  -11.95713   25.27349
## 406 2017-08-12 5.431217  -14.40536   24.19389