About two qualities of the Dhamma

I've seen in plenty of discussions and threads that there are some criteria to keep in mind while trying to separate the "real Dhamma" from the "fake" one. For example, in [AN 11:13](https://suttacentral.net/an11.13/en/sujato) there is a fragment which tell us that: >The teaching is well explained by the Buddha—visible in this very life, **immediately effective**, inviting inspection, relevant, so that **sensible people can know it for themselves**. A few questions: 1) When differentiating between teachings, should we consider all these quatities at the same time? Or should we pick one over the others? 2) If some teaching is not inmediately effective, but the results (as described in the suttas) are seen after a long, dedicated practice, should we discard that teaching? 3) If a practicant is not able to perceive something described in the suttas inmediately, should we discard such suttas a priori, or should he/she consider the possibility of not being "sensible" enough (i.e. not having reached the minimum level of spiritual maturity for perceiving such X aspect of the Teaching)? 4) How can we know if some alleged result is not perceived due to my own current lack of experience, or if it's because the teaching is false? Thanks in advance for your time and patience. Kind regards!