This shows you are losing fat from your liver.
The shakes contain enough protein to enable an increase in muscle hence you may be converting fat into muscle.
The issue is that "weight loss" is of no importance what we care about is the fat in our organs, but we don't have a way to measure the fat content of our liver etc. Hence everyone talks about "weight loss" as the two often goes together.
Yes, the blood sugar is certainly the very positive evidence that my liver is recovering functionality and that only comes from losing the fat deposited there. Putting my biochemical hat on, I can see various possible explanations for what I'm seeing. I could be losing fat at the same time as retaining fluid after an initial fluid loss so the composition of my weight is changing, losing fat but not seeing the scales change. Or there could actually be a desposition of fat continuing because of the effects of the insulin. If this was enough to compensate for the fat loss, the liver would still show signs of improvement but the adipose tissue wouldn't yet thin out. Lipid metabolism is never a straight in-out process but over time, with a thinned down properly functioning liver, a net energy deficit will necessarily reduce adipose deposits. If the liver is not properly thinned down, that energy equation gets skewed, hence all the counter-intuitive results from historic trials about obesity and dieting. My money is on fluid retention and the presence of insulin.
The alternative about muscle building because of the quantity of protein in the shakes is a possible contender providing that there were muscle-building activities going on, such as using weights, exercise, or tissue repair after an injury. Without those being present, there seems a lack of a metabolic reason why the protein would be diverted from simple metabolism to release energy. A protein surplus doesn't automatically get directed to building muscle tissue, it gets metabolised like everything else and enters the metabolic pathways so something has to divert the resources to muscles building and I can't yet see a reason for that. So I suppose, as ever, it's wait and see.
I think substantial weight loss is very important to me as well as the restored blood glucose control because, as Taylor pointed out, if we don't get and stay below our fat threshold, we won't maintain control. That's why he stressed losing 15% of body weight or around 15kg. So for me at least, it certainly isn't of no importance. The blood control is vital but for me so is the substantial weight loss because without the latter, I'm not sure how it's possible to maintain the former.
Thanks for you helpful comments and for sparing the time to think about it. Much appreciated.