hyun_seoul said:

It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.

Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. Four weeks is the pharmacokinetics, not caution. With a one-week half-life you need four to five half-lives to reach steady state, so at two weeks you are dosing on top of a concentration that has not finished rising. Escalating then stacks exposure and you get the side-effect burden of the higher dose before you have seen the benefit of the current one.

Worth separating that from the titration schedule, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.

The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself. Four weeks is the usual minimum for anything pharmacological on this board, and two weeks of data has told you almost nothing.

Following on from hyun_seoul — and this may be the naive question:

Whether anyone has held at a sub-maximal dose long term and kept the result, or whether the maintenance data only exists at 2.4mg?

Dr.PulmRoch said:

If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself.

Worth saying that the confident version of this is more useful to the person writing it than to the person reading it.

OP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.

Update. I did go to 2.4mg in the end, and the honest report is that it bought me less than the step before it and cost me two bad weeks. Worth knowing rather than worth repeating.