it's going to recover your test levels in a few weeks as opposed to 8-12 weeks and you'll feel like shit for a much shorter period of time, plenty of blood work to back that. I've done PCT twice and even a couple weeks of feeling like shit was plenty for me.
For comparison, I came off of for a period for an experiment and some blood work but I was off for almost 12 weeks and after that time my levels were under 300 (~290 IIRC) and felt like shit the whole time. With PCT, test levels were around 650 after 4 weeks and felt like shit for 2-3 of those
Unfortunately your experiment doesn't prove what you think it does. Just because large elevations of LH/FSH caused by PCT drugs increased your test levels, that doesn't mean, had you stopped using them, that your test levels would have remained so elevated several weeks later. That would be the definition of recovery.
But also, I'm pretty sure you said around

00 was your natural level before you even used AAS? It would seem you recovered just fine without a PCT, it's just that your 'normal' levels are low and unpleasant for you anyway.
I also have plenty of anecdotes: over 15 years of bloodwork on countless guys that lead me to conclude that a standard PCT may temporarily boost test levels for
some for as long as they take the drugs. But as soon as they stop, levels drop back to where they were when they came off, plus sometimes some underlying recovery - likely in testes function - that occurred in that time. This is not recovery - it's a band-aid.
On the other hand, I've explored similar experiments with guys who recover well every time, and it's shown that with or without PCT, by about the end of a standard PCT (3-6 weeks) their test levels have normalised anyway. In other words, they can take a PCT and claim "it works," when in fact they would have recovered without it. If you don't do both in a relatively controlled manner, you simply aren't in a position to say that the PCT did anything at all.
Then with the larger (ie not just anecdotal) reviews that I've repeatedly brought up (because we really don't have much more to go on)
here and
here, we have evidence that a pretty large percentage of guys simply don't recover long-term, despite the overwhelming and prevailing dogma for decades now to perform a standard PCT after a cycle.
And we also have the fact that hypergonadotropic hypogonadism (HH) - the thing most seem to suffer from post-cycle - typically results in chronically elevated LH/FSH levels (which is, incidentally, potentially harmful/neurotoxic). But since the focus of PCT is to raise LH/FSH levels, and most end up with chronically elevated LH/FSH levels post-cycle, I fail to see how that's going to secure long-term recovery for those with already recovered or elevated levels. However, if a blood test demonstrates low LH/FSH, then sure, it's certainly worth a shot doing a PCT, but that's hardly a justification for making it standard practice for everyone.
Furthermore, the struggle with HH in AAS users points to problems with damage to the testes (primary hypogonadism --> failure to fully respond to elevated LH/FSH). Consequently, we can hypothesise that a better form of standard 'PCT' practice and HR advice would be to mitigate damage to the testes' cells that occurs during cycle. With the proposed model (developed mostly from rodent studies) generally assumed to be damage caused by ROS/radicals, much of which is derived from excess oestrogen conversion and assorted downstream metabolites in the testes, the use of antioxidants, low-doses of AAS during cycle, and/or compounds to limit oestrogen conversion would seem helpful approaches for those concerned for their long-term recovery. Low-dose hCG (i.e. 125iu daily) may be another on-cycle option, but there's a massive dispute about that, and even though it appears to maintain testes mass, it doesn't always seem to maintain actual test or sperm levels post-cycle (suggesting it's not necessarily helping germ/Leydig/Sertoli cells).