Does dual agonism explain the effect size, or is it dose?

Does dual agonism explain the effect size, or is it dose? I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below.

A question about dual agonism that I think has a definite answer, unlike most of what I ask here.

I have the reasoning below and I am fairly confident about the direction. I am not confident about the size, and the size is what the decision turns on.

Narrowing the opening post, because the general version has more than one answer.

The apnoea-hypopnoea index used in SURMOUNT-OSA is an objective measurement rather than a symptom scale, which is why that trial carries more weight than its size suggests. Two parallel trials with and without positive airway pressure addressed the obvious confounder directly.

I am confident about the direction and much less about the magnitude.

The published pharmacokinetics show dose proportionality across the studied range, which means dose arithmetic behaves the way you would naively expect. That is not true of every compound and it is worth knowing which ones it is true of.

Worth one more sentence than it usually gets.

SURMOUNT-1 reported weight reduction of a magnitude that was the largest for a pharmacological intervention at that time of publication. It also reported a clear dose response across three doses. The categorical thresholds (people reaching 10%, 15%, 20% loss) got the most attention but read less informatively than the mean weight change.

Not disagreeing with anyone above, just adding the bit I keep having to look up.

Adding the measurement that post #26 says would settle it.

SURMOUNT-1 reported weight reduction of a magnitude that was the largest for a pharmacological intervention at that time of publication. It also reported a clear dose response across three doses. The categorical thresholds (people reaching 10%, 15%, 20% loss) got the most attention but read less informatively than the mean weight change.

That is all the detail I have. Someone else will have more.

Answering the dual agonism question as asked, then the question I think is meant. As asked: yes, with the qualification below. As meant: it depends on how the first measurement was taken.

Careful with the language on dual agonism. "Not detected" and "not present" are different findings and the first is a statement about the method.

If someone has run dual agonism properly I would rather read that than my own reconstruction of it. Posting mine only because the thread has gone quiet.