Why some GLP-1 labels have a dose table, and others do not.

The short answer: 1 of the 5 current label records in CareCanon contains a dosing-schedule table that can be reproduced as a table. The others state the sequence in prose, so a useful chart has to preserve both the wording and the fact that its rows were rendered from that wording.

The format changes, even when the question does not.

A reader asks a simple question: what sequence does the current prescribing record show? But DailyMed does not force every label to answer that question in the same layout. One label may include a table with stages and intervals. Another may publish the same kind of information as sentences in section 2.

Scope: the five originator-label records mirrored by CareCanon on 2026-08-29. This is a format comparison, not a comparison of clinical quality.

What “rendered from prose” means here.

CareCanon does not invent intermediate doses. For a prose-only schedule, the system starts with the label’s own escalation sentence, maps only the stages that sentence names, and checks every displayed dose against the label’s dosage-forms-and-strengths section. The source sentence stays next to the table.

This distinction matters because a polished chart can otherwise look manufacturer-authored even when the manufacturer published no chart. The reader should be able to tell which is which without opening developer tools or trusting a byline.

Why the missing format creates search demand.

When the source publishes a paragraph and the reader wants a scan-friendly sequence, the unmet need is formatting, not another opinion about the drug. That is the narrow job of a CareCanon dose record: make the source easier to inspect while keeping the source, version and transformation visible.