raj_cambridge said:

Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.

That reframing is the part I needed.

Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. Start from the measurement rather than the conclusion. Almost every disagreement here turns out to be two people measuring different things and comparing the numbers anyway.

andrew_nyc said:

Start from the measurement rather than the conclusion.

Mine went the same way, slower. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.

andrew_nyc said:

Start from the measurement rather than the conclusion.

There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. Four weeks is the pharmacokinetics, not caution. With a one-week half-life you need four to five half-lives to reach steady state, so at two weeks you are dosing on top of a concentration that has not finished rising. Escalating then stacks exposure and you get the side-effect burden of the higher dose before you have seen the benefit of the current one.

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.

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

I held the step an extra three weeks instead of stepping back down, and it settled. Same dose, same everything, just more time — which is exactly what was suggested upthread.