I guess I feel like it's potentially valuable to mention Dr. Schindler's finding from the Yale study of psilocybin and CH. I only have access to the summary information, and there might be more that I need to know, but the report (https://headachejournal.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/head.14420) states:
>>>Changes in cluster attack frequency were not correlated with the intensity of acute psychotropic effects during psilocybin administration. The separation of acute psychotropic effects and lasting therapeutic effects underscores the need for further investigation into the mechanism(s) of action of psilocybin in headache disorders.<<<
I read this to mean either that any form of tripping is unrelated to treating CH, or that a lesser "trip" or psychedelic experience is just as likely to have therapeutic effects as a stronger experience.
I think this has been pretty well understood here for a long time, and that in general trip-level doses are recommended not because they are therapeutic in themselves but principally because they ensure that a person has ingested enough psilocybin. (Whether a trip is necessary for other benefits, such as overall anxiety reduction and better overall sense of well-being, I don't know.)
At the same time, I feel like seeds are possibly dismissed sometimes because there is no trip -- because it doesn't seem like a bold enough response to the horror of CH. And sometimes people are encouraged to "trip balls" or "see God" if lower doses aren't working. Neither of these approaches would seem to be consistent with what Schindler reports. (Of course, she could be wrong, and also, since the highest dose in her study was equivalent to about 1.25 grams, maybe the study's results would have been better if people had taken more (and correlatively probably had stronger trips).)