Wanted: RE to Read my OPK Results

So I thought I'd have had my IUI by now. Monday was Day 14, and I still hadn't had a positive on my OPK, so I went in for an ultrasound. Not ready. Tested yesterday. Still negative. But now it was only mostly negative. The test line was darker than it had been, almost as dark as the control line on the far left side, but not all the way across. Again this morning--almost, but maybe not quite?

I know these things are either negative or positive--if you've never used one, you're probably thinking, "what idiot can't figure this out?"--but it really doesn't work that way. If you don't understand how that could be, go to Peeonastick.com (which is a funny and informative site), which purports to answer the all important "when is an OPK really positive?" question.

But the pictures for my particular brand of OPK weren't really instructive--my sticks didn't look like the positives or the negatives--like I said, they looked in between. And then there was some confusing information about what to do if part, but not all, of your test line is as dark as the control line. With some OPKs, that means a positive, with others, the width of the dark part is what matters. How can they possibly except neurotic, ovulating women to figure this out on their own?!

This isn't the first time I've been through this. Last month, I went in too early after pulling my OPK from the trash can and examining with the help of my headlamp, up close. Again, it was in between, and I was worried I'd miss the "big drop," as DH And I call it, so I kept looking at it over and over. I wasn't ready, but it meant an extra ultrasound to check things out.

So this time, not wanting to be overanxious like I had been, I went into the doctor's office and told them I'd had a negative. They did a test in the office, and the doctor happily announced, "positive!" What the heck? He showed it to me and it looked just like the ones I'd had at home. I explained that and he told me it was "borderline." I didn't know you could be "borderline" and it would sure be nice if that was on the package, instead of "99.9% accurate." Apparently, to get that accurate result, you need an RE to read it for you.