How adherence is judged

Adherence answers one question about a whole training block: is the plan delivering what it was written to deliver? It's the same 0–100 execution scale a single session is graded on, averaged across the block's scored sessions — so a single run and the phase it belongs to can never mean different things.

A word leads, the number supports. A number on its own doesn't tell you whether 84 is good, so Runsei puts a word first and the score behind it. There are five, from *nearly every session landed on the stimulus it was written for* down to *most of the intended work hasn't landed*, and the one you're in is on screen above the score — in your own language.

Opening it shows what moved it. The sessions that cost the most appear first, each with its own score, and each one opens the actual run behind it. A number you can't audit is a number you won't trust — so there is always a path from the verdict down to the run.

It is a judgement about the plan, not about you. If sessions are being cut short, the plan may be asking for time you don't have. If they're being run *too hard*, the prescribed paces may be pitched low. Both are things the coach changes in the plan; neither is a reason to be told to try harder.

When too little is scored, no verdict is given. A block graded on a handful of its runs would be a confident number resting on almost nothing, so Runsei shows how many sessions are scored and withholds the verdict rather than publishing a misleading one.