Both alternatives can be made explicit. For a conditional bias-corrected normal mean estimate, let be the observed pooled estimate and , with . Invert its conditional mean:
This can be solved by bracketing or by Newton iteration . Since ,
The variance of a standard normal conditional on exceeding is , strictly between zero and one. Positivity follows from nondegeneracy; the upper bound follows because the conditional mean exceeds the truncation threshold . Hence , so the equation has at most one root. As , ; as , the truncated stage-1 mean approaches its threshold and , so a root exists for every finite . Equivalently, differentiating the conditional likelihood divides the ordinary likelihood by and gives the same score equation. This conditional-likelihood correction is not exactly conditionally unbiased merely because it inverts a mean.
For an illustration, take , , and . The equation is . Since and , the corrected estimate lies between zero and ; numerical solution gives , below the selected ordinary estimate.
For the uniform minimum variance conditionally unbiased estimator, put , , and . The fresh estimate is conditionally unbiased because it is independent of continuation. Let
Before selection, conditional Gaussian calculations give . Conditional on as well, this normal variable is truncated below , so
Using , Rao-Blackwellization therefore gives
Its conditional expectation is , and its conditional variance cannot exceed that of . To justify uniform minimum variance, the joint conditional density of is a base density on multiplied by . Thus is a complete sufficient statistic in the one-parameter conditional exponential family, whose natural parameter ranges over an open real interval. The Lehmann–Scheffé theorem proves the claim. The orthogonal pooled arm-average statistic is independent of the entire difference process and carries the nuisance common mean. Together with , it gives a complete sufficient statistic in the selected two-parameter normal family, with an open natural-parameter space. Thus allowing that nuisance statistic does not improve the conditional unbiased estimate of the difference. For the same illustration, , and give . It differs from the conditional-likelihood estimate because exact conditional unbiasedness is a different criterion.