I agree with Vaughn. I always make a new test print. The math can be a starting point but once you see larger prints after they dry down you will find there is something that will need a change. Usually the larger prints will be viewed from a different distance and the ambient light may not be the same as when you are up close and personal with your print.
It ought to be simple but it isn't. See Sticky Thread at top of this forum - pages of agonising about essentially the same thing. For some reason a mathematical approach just doesn't work - in the event contrast is not quite the same, exposure not quite the same, burn times as proportion of exposure not the same; and even if, as pointed out, a highlight or shadow is just as in the 10 x 8, in the bigger size it doesn't look right any more. And of course there are lots of reasons, especially if you are lengthening the exposure rather than opening up the aperture - reciprocity failure, maybe a little flash effect from the safelight that was meant ot be safe, light spill from the enlarger, light leak through the ceiling, your lovely pack of 20 x 16 is older than your fresh 10 x 8; need I go on?
So, I always start again; at least you know what you are after. I start again with my trusty RH Designs Analyser to give me a basic exposure, then put two or three or four 5 x 7s onto key areas (ideally cut from the pack of 20 x 16, but as I use MGIV RC I can usually just use tailor-mades), dev and fix; then maybe a test strip with my Ralph Lambrecht test strip printer to fine tune exposure; then Bob's your uncle, a final print and it's not even supper time yet. It's not really a hassle, after all most of us don't make 20 x 16s of every neg; I may go months without feeling I have a negative worth the treatment, but when I do, it's special.
youngrichard
PS I've done all that midnight oil burning; I'm retired now, so I can do it in the afternoon.