iForge AI Coach / Performance Board

See what is changing — and why.

One decision view connects your current capacity, the drivers behind it and the next useful action. Trend beats the daily spike.

Week 07 / 12

Data provenance

Garmin Connect APITraining logDaily check-ins

88% coverage · 2 sleep observations missing

English (United Kingdom) · metric units · local dates and numbers

Illustrative data onlyHuman-reviewed guidanceEU activation gate

Data & consent

01Next useful action

Aerobic base session

Keep the session conversational and finish with five minutes of mobility.

35 min · Z2

Why this now

Load is building, while recovery consistency remains the limiting driver.

02Useful capacity index

78/100

+5versus previous 28 days

Building reliably

A weighted trend across the three perspectives. It supports coaching decisions; it is not a medical assessment.

Integrated week / 07

This week trains the whole system.

One schedule connects physical work, mental practice and purposeful execution. The total burden is visible before the week starts.

Non-physical burden43 min / weekBuild block · highest planned load before recalibration

Physical Capacity

Performance

Two strength sessions · aerobic base · controlled quality session

4 core actions · 185 min

Why this: Capacity is building and current recovery supports the planned dose.
Minimum equivalent: Use the reduced-volume equivalent on one high-pressure day.

Mental Composure

Focus

Two-minute reset before both key sessions · two protected focus blocks

4 practices · 18 min

Why this: Interruption recovery is the current constraint, not motivation.
Minimum equivalent: One 90-second reset before the highest-value task.

Purposeful Direction

Execute

Protect four key actions · complete the weekly after-action review

5 check-ins + review · 25 min

Why this: The objective is clear; competing work is the main execution risk.
Minimum equivalent: Protect one essential action and record the obstacle.

Weekly review

Keep, change or remove one thing. The programme normally changes one material variable at a time.

0 / 3

Balanced performance scorecard

Three perspectives. One operating system.

Outcome, behaviour and context sit together. Select a perspective to see the evidence and the action it changes.

Selected perspective · Physical capacity

Keep Thursday controlled; training quality is still improving without extra intensity.

Scores are normalised to your own baseline and use only available observations.

Performance intelligence / system view

Causal Driver Map

Explore how context, behaviour and outcomes may connect. Every line declares what the data can—and cannot—support.

Within-person view · illustrative data · 28-day window

Observed relationshipAssociation in available observations

Causal hypothesisPlausible mechanism, not yet tested

Tested effectEstimated in a designed personal experiment

Select a connection or node to inspect its evidence Interaction detected: Sleep × Pressure

Investigation / evidence tree

Five whys — without false certainty

Each answer must cite evidence, show confidence and keep an alternative explanation alive.

Why1
Why was the Thursday session shortened?
Perceived readiness was low and the planned duration no longer fitted the day.
EvidenceSession log · 30 of 45 min · RPE 8AlternativeThe session itself may have been too ambitious.
Confidence · High
Why2
Why was readiness low?
Sleep was short and work pressure peaked before the session.
Evidence6 h 21 min sleep · pressure 4.7 / 5AlternativeAccumulated training load may explain part of it.
Confidence · Moderate
Why3
Why did pressure affect execution?
No lower-friction session option was available when the calendar changed.
EvidencePlan had one fixed 45-minute formatAlternativeSession timing, not plan rigidity, may be decisive.
Confidence · Moderate
Why4
Why was there no alternative?
The weekly plan optimised progression, but not adaptation rules for peak-work days.
Evidence0 of 4 key sessions had a predefined equivalentAlternativeThe athlete may prefer strict plans.
Confidence · Moderate
Why5
Why does that matter for the target?
Repeated execution matters more than preserving every planned minute.
EvidenceCompletion trend aligns more closely with capacity than planned volumeAlternativeMore intensity could still be the stronger driver.
Confidence · Low

Testable hypothesisPlan rigidity reduces quality-session execution during work-pressure peaks.

Proposed testOffer a 30-minute equivalent on matched high-pressure days and compare completion, RPE and next-day energy.

This tree organises inquiry. It does not prove a root cause.

Conditional pattern

Interaction Effect Explorer

Averages hide context. Select a cell to see how sleep and work pressure combine around session execution.

Outcome · key-session completion

Sleep consistency →Work pressure →

InconsistentMixedConsistent

Low

Medium

High

Selected conditionHigh × Consistent

78%Estimated completion
Uncertainty ±9 pp · n=3

Interaction signal

The sleep difference is larger under high work pressure (+33 pt) than under low pressure (+13 pt). Treat this as a conditional association until tested.

Cell estimates use sparse illustrative observations; ranges widen where fewer days are available.

Sequence / timing

Event + lag timeline

Check whether a driver comes before an outcome and whether the relationship changes with the lag.

Prove / personal experiment

N-of-1 Experiment Lab

Turn one causal hypothesis into a small, reversible test with explicit guardrails.

Protocol statusDraft · human approval required

01 / Hypothesis: A shorter equivalent session preserves quality on high-pressure days.
02 / Intervention: 30-minute equivalent when pressure ≥4 / 5.
03 / Comparator: Standard 45-minute session on matched eligible days.
04 / Primary outcome: Completion as intended; secondary: RPE and next-day energy.
05 / Duration: 4 weeks · minimum 8 eligible days.
06 / Guardrail: Stop on pain, unusual fatigue or coach concern.

No intervention starts automatically. Coach and participant approve the protocol first.

Forge / scenario room

What-if simulator

Adjust controllable inputs and inspect a range—not a false point prediction.

Scenario estimate68%–84%Expected completion range

Nights inside sleep window5 / 7Thursday session volume90%High-pressure days2

Based on selected inputs5 / 7 · 90% · 2

Scenario estimate based on illustrative within-person associations. Not a medical forecast or causal guarantee.

Target evidence

Improve the 5 km field test without losing workday energy.

The main objective combines one physical outcome with the execution condition that makes it useful in real life.

01 / Baseline22:30completed · week 1

02 / Current estimate22:02trend model · week 7

03 / Week 12 target<21:45retest required

The current value is a trend estimate, not a test result. The week-12 retest is the outcome measure.

Working cause map

01Recovery discipline
02Session quality
03Composure under load
04Target evidence

AI insight · human governed

Reduce Thursday's volume by 10%; keep the intended intensity.

This preserves the quality stimulus while the recovery driver catches up. No red flag is present in the available data.

Rule owner: iForge Performance Lead · reviewed 17 Aug 2026

View coach context

Coach context: two lower-sleep nights, stable resting HR and improving quality-session completion support a small volume adjustment rather than replacing the session.

Illustrative customer view

Your board begins with your baseline.

This demonstration uses illustrative data. Personal scores, relationships and actions unlock only after intake, consent and a usable baseline.

Explore Founding Cohort 01Human oversight · minimal data · EU release gate