Random assignment

Random assignment means a chance device, not the experimenter, decides which unit gets which treatment, and the device's probabilities do not depend on anything about the unit. That is the whole requirement. It does not demand equal group sizes and it does not promise that the finished groups will look alike. What it buys is that every variable other than the treatment was spread across the groups by that same chance mechanism, so a difference in the response has only two explanations left, the treatment or chance, and the p-value measures the second one.

Balance is a tendency, not a guarantee. Take 20 subjects, 10 of them women, split into two groups of 10 by shuffling names. The expected split is 5 and 5, but the chance of landing exactly there is $\frac{\binom{10}{5}^2}{\binom{20}{10}} = \frac{63504}{184756} = 0.344$. A group holding 8 or more of the 10 women turns up about 2.3 percent of the time, and all 10 landing together about once in 92,000 assignments.

So "the treatment group came out older on average, so the randomization failed" reads the wrong thing. Random assignment is judged on the procedure used, not on the split it produced, and imbalance of exactly that size already sits inside the reference distribution the p-value comes from. Redrawing until the groups look even destroys that: the assignment is no longer random and the stated error rate no longer holds.

The boundary is who is in the study at all, and random assignment says nothing about it. Forty volunteers randomly assigned support a causal claim about people like those volunteers and about no one else. Widening the audience takes random selection, a separate act on a separate list; see scope of inference.

Topic 1.13 lists random assignment beside comparison, replication, and direct control as the four elements of a well-designed experiment.