MikeFit_NJ said:

The dose-response is real but shallow at the top.

I will push back on the "any working dose is fine" framing. The maintenance evidence sits overwhelmingly at the top studied dose, and the extension data shows regain tracking dose reduction rather than tracking stopping. Holding low is reasonable; pretending it is evidentially equivalent is not.

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

Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. For anyone assembling their own picture: Tmax is one to three days, terminal half-life about 165 to 170 hours, steady state at four to five weeks, and subcutaneous bioavailability near 89%. Those four numbers explain most of the questions people ask about timing.

PharmD_Rodriguez said:

I will push back on the "any working dose is fine" framing.

Coming at PharmD_Rodriguez’s question from a different direction. The pattern that distinguishes a bad batch from an exit is behaviour rather than product. A bad batch comes with communication, a reshipment offer and a batch number. An exit comes with slower replies, pressure toward less reversible payment methods, sudden discounting, and the same reassurance repeated without any new information. The product tells you less than the correspondence does.

One thing that is still open after fiona_glasgow’s answer:

How people are distinguishing a supplier having a bad batch from a supplier on the way out?

Closing the loop on my own question.

Following this thread I went back and re-read the extension data properly. The point about trough rather than peak explains the pattern I was seeing on day six, which I had been blaming on the vial.