traveltech_sara said:

Resolution therefore closed the doors unevenly, and the asymmetry follows from the bulks lists.

That is correct as far as it goes, and here is where it stops going. Worth adding the genuine exception, because it is real and narrow: a change made for an identified patient where the prescriber determines it produces a significant clinical difference for that patient. A grid of fixed doses offered to everybody is not that, whatever the intake form says.

DerekSJ_a1c said:

True, though the ladder is longer and that is not a neutral detail — six dose steps means six opportunities to stall on the way up, and plenty of…

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

traveltech_sara said:

Resolution therefore closed the doors unevenly, and the asymmetry follows from the bulks lists.

Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. A research-chemical supplier selling lyophilised powder labelled research use only is not compounding and is not claiming to. It is a different legal universe with no pharmacy oversight, no patient relationship and no content guarantee, and conflating the two in these threads helps nobody.

Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine. Half the figures circulating in this community trace back to a secondary summary that dropped a qualifier.

Moderator note: a post naming a supplier has been edited. Discuss suppliers in the review sections, not here. Tagging this one for the weekly digest.