Dr.RaviCardio said:

One practical note: write down what you did and when, before you need it.

Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. Pushing back on the anecdote-stacking. Twenty people reporting the same thing is twenty samples from the same self-selected pool, not twenty independent confirmations.

Dr.RaviCardio said:

One practical note: write down what you did and when, before you need it.

Agreed on the substance. I would put less weight on the timescale, because two months of anything is not enough to distinguish a trend from a wobble.

Dr.RaviCardio said:

One practical note: write down what you did and when, before you need it.

This answered a question I did not know how to ask. Adding it to my notes with a link back to this thread.

Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. Most of what circulates confidently in this community traces back to one summary of one study, and the qualifier was dropped somewhere in the third retelling.

Reporting back.

Follow-up — getting the denial reason in writing was the step that mattered. It named the criterion, and the criterion was a document I already had.