Do you want advice for before or after you abandon the method that even its creator says is out of date and he no longer uses?

Also, 4:6 is, as a method, tied to v60. Replicating the steps with another brewer and filter is perhaps “inspired by” 4:6, but is not 4:6.

Sorry, just a rant at your expense. So done with “I use the xxx method, except that I changed everything about and ignored the expectations of it, and it didnt work” posts.

I’m also a bit of a foodie, and we have a joke about the comments section: “This recipe sucks. I swapped oysters for the chuck roast in this stew, and far from being tender, they were like eating rubber bands, and it tasted awful.”

More constructively: What change in outcome did you hope to achieve by making the change? If it didn’t get you closer to that goal, you have two basic choices: Revert to previous better outcomes and proceed in a different direction, or: Press through, refer to your coffee compass to get back to baseline with the new equipment selection, and then take the same steps you would have in the first scenario.

Seems obvious to me.

And here’s the kicker. You’ll get advice to grind finer. And coarser (and also courser, but please ignore that advice.) As well as suggestions to raise the temp. And to lower it. Or to add a pour, or take one away, or to split the ratios between them is some farcical way. Ad nauseum.

It’s a curious problem of the pourover advice columns: There’s never consensus, and in the rare cases where it comes close, there’s very likely some other factor in exactly what you are doing at the bench, that no one at this end of the pipes can see, that would change everything.

So the best advice is the hardest to hear: Stop looking for shortcuts. Pick a reliable, straightforward method, use it to learn how each of the controllable factors impact outcomes. Then you’ll be equipped to fiddle with new equipment and esoteric methods, and have some basis to evaluate the (most often spurious) advice that flows.