james_edin said:

Resolution therefore closed the doors unevenly, and the asymmetry follows from the bulks lists.

Agreed, and the enforcement dates were staggered by category — 503A first, 503B a few weeks later — because outsourcing facilities have manufactured inventory and clinic contracts to unwind while a 503A makes to order.

DoseLogDan said:

Agreed on the mechanism, with the caveat that the head-to-head used semaglutide 1mg, not 2.4mg.

That reframing is the part I needed. Adding it to my notes with a link back to this thread.

james_edin said:

Resolution therefore closed the doors unevenly, and the asymmetry follows from the bulks lists.

This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. A research-chemical supplier selling lyophilised powder labelled research use only is not compounding and is not claiming to. It is a different legal universe with no pharmacy oversight, no patient relationship and no content guarantee, and conflating the two in these threads helps nobody.

The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. The boring version of this is the one that works, and the boring version is: measure a baseline, change one variable, wait, measure again under the same conditions. Nobody wants that answer and it is still the answer.

Moderator note: the sourcing question belongs in the vendor section and has been split out. No action needed from anybody.