How to read a phase 2 result without treating it as a phase 3 result

The question in the title: How to read a phase 2 result without treating it as a phase 3 result I will give what I have already checked below so nobody repeats it.

Putting the numbers in the first post, because a question about a compound without them turns into a question about somebody's impression of it.

retatrutide, monoisotopic mass near 4731.3 Da, 4 weeks of my own notes, and 4 lots from 2 suppliers with a purity figure on each. That is the whole basis of what follows.

What I want checked is the reasoning I have built on top of it, not the figures themselves.

The phase 3 programme is ongoing and its results will change what can be said here. Until then, this subcategory's convention is to state the phase alongside any result quoted.

Post #10 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.

Retatrutide is investigational. Anything obtained outside a trial is by definition research-use-only material with no human-use authorisation. This site will state that plainly rather than winking at it.

None of the above is medical advice and I am not qualified to give any.

Retatrutide is investigational. Anything obtained outside a trial is by definition research-use-only material with no human-use authorisation. This site will state that plainly rather than winking at it.

Discontinuation for adverse effects in phase 2 was not negligible at the higher doses. That figure belongs next to the efficacy figure whenever the efficacy figure is quoted.

The right answer here may simply be that it has not been measured.

Nausea and vomiting were dose-related in the phase 2 work, as they are throughout this class. What is not established is whether the tolerability profile differs from the dual agonists at equipotent effect, because equipotence has not been established either.

This is where my knowledge stops and I would rather mark the edge than blur it.