tom_AK said:

I did not do what was suggested, I did something adjacent, and it worked; posting the difference in case it matters to somebody.

Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale. Posting only so the count is not one.

tom_AK said:

I did not do what was suggested, I did something adjacent, and it worked; posting the difference in case it matters to somebody.

Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the correction. That is slower than asserting, and it is the only version that survives being wrong.

Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.

Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a trend.

One thing that is still open after tom_AK’s answer:

Did your prescriber agree with that reading, and if not what was their objection?

VendorMark said:

Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a…

Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. I think the framing smuggles in the conclusion. Ask it the other way round and the obvious answer reverses, which usually means the question is doing the work.