This gets cited here weekly, usually second-hand, so it is worth setting out what it does and does not establish.
The manufacturing argument is the underrated one. Peptide synthesis capacity has been the binding constraint on this entire class, and a small molecule is made in ordinary chemical plants. If it holds up in phase 3, the supply and price picture changes more than the efficacy picture does.
Where I think it is weakest: the comparator does most of the work in how this gets reported, and it is not the comparator most people think they are citing.
What I am after is whether a non-peptide oral agonist can match injectable exposure in practice, or whether the convenience is bought with a lower ceiling. Numbers rather than impressions, if you have them.
Note on sourcing:
Figures above are from the primary publication rather than the press summary. If a number here disagrees with one you have, post yours and we will work out which of us is reading a secondary source.