JennaRN said:

A step that is uncomfortable at week two is frequently comfortable at week six with no change in dose, because the gastric-emptying component…

Agreeing with JennaRN, and the qualification matters more than the agreement. The trials generally allowed a step to be held or reduced and then retried, and people who did that mostly arrived at the same place a few weeks later. The end point of the ladder is set by tolerability, not by a schedule, and there is no evidence that reaching the top faster produces a better outcome.

JennaRN said:

A step that is uncomfortable at week two is frequently comfortable at week six with no change in dose, because the gastric-emptying component…

I disagree that the ladder is purely tolerability. The maintenance and regain data cluster at the top doses, so a ladder abandoned halfway leaves you outside the evidence base for the part that matters most — keeping it off.

I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.

Taking the question as asked, rather than the general version of it. 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.

NeuroNate said:

The trials generally allowed a step to be held or reduced and then retried, and people who did that mostly arrived at the same place a few weeks…

Same pattern here, and in the same order.