This gets cited here weekly, usually second-hand, so it is worth setting out what it does and does not establish.
Holding longer is the underrated move. A step that is uncomfortable at week two is frequently comfortable at week six with no change in dose, because the gastric-emptying component tachyphylaxes while the appetite effect persists. Escalating at week two throws that adaptation away.
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.
What would genuinely help is knowing what the trials actually did with participants who could not tolerate a step, because that is the situation I am in and the protocol summaries skip it. I have searched first, so if this is covered somewhere point me at it and I will read it.
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.