A reason to prefer the single-step approaches over the drift that has nothing to do with exposure: a drifting schedule destroys your ability to attribute symptoms.
People on this class typically develop a reproducible weekly symptom pattern — some describe a first-48-hours effect, some a mid-week trough in appetite suppression, some nothing at all. Whatever the pattern, its value is that it is stable, because a stable pattern lets you notice a change. A new symptom appearing on day 3 is informative if day 3 has looked the same for eleven weeks.
During three weeks of drift, the day of the week and the day of the cycle are both moving, and you have lost the ability to distinguish "this is the day-3 effect" from "this is a Wednesday effect" from "this is new". If anything goes wrong during a drift, the drift is a confounder you introduced yourself.
Practical version of the argument: make the change once, on a week where nothing else is changing, and hold everything else constant across it. Not simultaneously with an escalation, not in the week of a new vial, not while travelling across time zones. One variable at a time is not a fussy laboratory principle here, it is the only way a weekly cycle with a sample size of one is interpretable at all.
On the direction, I mildly disagree with the accepted answer's framing on practical rather than arithmetic grounds. Shortening once means the change is complete immediately and the following week is already normal. Lengthening once means a three-day stretch where exposure is at its lowest point in the whole schedule, and for anyone whose appetite signal is noticeably time-varying across a normal week, that stretch is the part of the week they will notice most. The arithmetic favours lengthening by a few percentage points; the experience reported by people who have moved a day tends to favour getting it over with. Both are inside the label. Neither is a decision this board should be making for anyone.