I think the way the likelihood is written now, the first primary period with at least one observation is treated as the "initial" primary period, even if there were several periods before it with all missing values. I'm not sure this is technically incorrect but it might yield different values to other software.
I think the way the likelihood is written now, the first primary period with at least one observation is treated as the "initial" primary period, even if there were several periods before it with all missing values. I'm not sure this is technically incorrect but it might yield different values to other software.