Putting this up for argument rather than for agreement. I have read it twice and I am still not certain what it supports.
The distinction that matters is unopened versus in use. Unopened vials are stable refrigerated for their labelled shelf life and tolerate a limited excursion to room temperature. Once reconstituted, the clock is much shorter and is set by the preservative rather than by the peptide — bacteriostatic water's benzyl alcohol is what buys you multiple draws over weeks. Sterile water has no preservative and turns a multi-dose vial into a single-use one.
Where I think it is weakest: the population was selected and supported in ways a real cohort is not, so I would read the effect size as a ceiling rather than an expectation.
The narrow version of the question is what a temperature excursion actually does, and what distinguishes an unopened vial from one already in use. I would rather have one careful answer than five confident ones.
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.