Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. It helps to ask what evidence would change your mind before you look at any. If nothing would, the discussion is not about evidence, and it is better to say so early than to spend nine posts discovering it.

Worth separating that from the titration schedule, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.

Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.

KevinCompounds said:

It helps to ask what evidence would change your mind before you look at any.

Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale.

OP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.

Update — I came back down one step, held for a month, then went up again and it was uneventful the second time. Same ladder, slower.

One concrete data point for the thread. Worth stating the units and the reference range whenever you post a number here. A large fraction of the apparent disagreement in these threads is two people using different units and both being right.

A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:

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