Taking the question as asked, rather than the general version of it. The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated. Those two sets overlap less than the confident tone of most write-ups suggests, and the second set is where nearly all the disagreement on this board comes from.

LabKate said:

The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.

Agreeing with LabKate, and the qualification matters more than the agreement. The glucagon component looks paradoxical and is not. Glucagon receptor agonism raises energy expenditure and drives hepatic fatty-acid oxidation, and its hyperglycaemic tendency is offset by the GLP-1 arm's insulin secretagogue effect. Net result: intake down from GLP-1/GIP, expenditure up from glucagon, glycaemia neutral or improved. It is a balancing act, and it is why the liver-fat results are the most interesting part of the dataset.

SkepticalSean said:

Sceptical rather than excited about the triple agonist, and I would like somebody to talk me out of the scepticism with data rather than enthusiasm.

This matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so out loud. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.

From the other side of the consultation, briefly. 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.