Putting this up for argument rather than for agreement. I have read it twice and I am still not certain what it supports.
The mechanism is slowed transit plus reduced intake, and that combination determines which interventions work. Less food means less bulk, slower motility means more water reabsorbed, and the result is a smaller, drier, slower stool. Insoluble fiber adds bulk to a system that is already moving slowly, which is why it frequently makes things worse. Soluble fiber holds water and is the better first choice, and an osmotic agent works with the mechanism rather than against it.
Where I think it is weakest: the follow-up is short relative to how long people actually take these drugs, so durability is an assumption here rather than a finding.
What I am trying to establish is whether fiber actually helps GLP-1 constipation or whether the evidence is borrowed from a different population. Not looking for reassurance. Looking for the part I have got wrong.
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.