Say the current mortality rate for an operation is 10%.
If you say "survival increased by 10%" what does that mean?
In this case, "relative to success" makes most sense, since the use case for the sentence is in evaluating a policy change.
But imagine the current success rate was 99.9%. In that case an improvement to 99.99%, reducing deaths to 1/10 as many as before, could be described in these ways:
So where do you draw the line between these cases?
This has real effects: In meetings with both execs and technical/stats people, there is usually a lot of hand-waving when the stats people hand-off of the analysis to execs. The stats people explain the results using some percentage-related terms, and then the execs internalize the numbers. When they then repeat the number, they usually have just guessed which percentage variant was meant, and frequently have switched it.
That goes into their slide deck to present onward, and meaning is lost. Then the C levels naturally become suspicious and generally don't believe stats as much as they could, because their business knowledge occasionally tells them something went wrong. If we believe in the meaning of numbers, this is a problem. This also backs up skepticism about numbers - "you can prove anything with statistics"
Imagine seeing a map with dots on cities, with this voiceover:
"Larger dots indicate indicates cities where the coronavirus is more widespread"
The problem here is that the word "more" clearly denoting an additive or multiplicative difference. We do have lots of words which inherently include the sense of ratio.
Simply adding in a sense to existing words would solve the problem.
What does this mean? Is it additive or multiplicative? I want to qualify the word more into two senses: