Update.

Had second complete refraction for surgeries, yesterday, 11 July. While I thought there was change going on over the last couple of weeks in both eyes relative to near versus distance, the refraction yesterday was pretty close to the one on 21 Jun.

21 Jun
OD Plano +1.25
OS -1.50 +0.75

11 Jul
OD +0.25. +1.25
OS -1.50 +1.00

OD - the dominant eye (OD/R) now being +0.25 means it is longer than normal (plano), but some not insignificant amount of astigmatism is affecting it. The cylinder (astigmatism) did not change.
OS - the non-dominant eye (OS/L) is showing an additional +0.25 D of cylinder (astigmatism) - this may be what I am feeling most. I also noted I would like to have a bit more closer vision in the non-dominant eye (mono-vision)

I think my Doc was saying all the right things, noting he is part of a couple of ophtho forums where they exchange notes and discuss how LAL develops EDOF. Since the refraction was so close to the previous, he offered to do the first adjustment yesterday, but I asked for another week. He was very agreeable and noted we would have another refraction which was a good thing - he’s not in a hurry, either - so, good answer, I think.
His plan was to get OD back to plano and to eliminate the cylinder (astigmatism) - if this works out well, may be done with the OD. On OS (intended for monovision) he noted it was being affected by the cylinder, so he plans to eliminate the cylinder which should change the Spherical Equivalent to -1.50, whereas it is now -1.00 so near vision should improve and provide more EDOF and this moving myopically.

He noted few other things I found interesting:
1. He has done quite a few LAL+ since their release, but has not, so far seen significantly greater EDOF than with the non plus LAL following the usual process of moving myopically.
2. Instead of implanting two LAL+, he is leaning towards LAL in the dominate eye (for distance vision) and LAL+ in the mono-vision eye.
3. Being in a rush to adjust and lock in is counter to the best interests of the patient.
4. He is beginning to discuss LAL with anyone over 50 who wants mono-vision (no glasses for the most part) instead of PRK or LASIK (he does all these). This is simply reflective of the overwhelming likelihood of developing cataracts and the seemingly lifetime utility of the LAL (yeah, I know time will tell).
5. I asked - he agrees many ophthamologists don't like LAL because it may cost them money, disturb their in-out process with normal cataract replacements.

As always, would appreciate any feedback or your experiences!