Dr.AddMedPHL said:

If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.

All true, with one condition: that curve is for people who reached the dose on schedule. Anyone who slowed the ladder for tolerability is on a different, flatter curve, and comparing yourself with the published mean will make you feel like a non-responder when you are not.

alex_tucson said:

Steady state is the thing most people miss.

Genuinely useful, thank you. I had the facts and not the framework.

Dr.AddMedPHL said:

If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.

I will push back on the "any working dose is fine" framing. The maintenance evidence sits overwhelmingly at the top studied dose, and the extension data shows regain tracking dose reduction rather than tracking stopping. Holding low is reasonable; pretending it is evidentially equivalent is not.

The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason. In three months the reason is what you will have forgotten, and the reason is what makes the record worth having.

Happy to go further on any of that.

Moderator note: leaving this open. It is being argued well and the disagreement is the useful part. Report rather than reply if it drifts again.