Fresh assessment: Coach Gunnar and Coach Luca plans, May 27 to June 5, 2026
- Athlete: Sidney McGill
- Assessment date: 2026-05-27
- Reviewer role: independent comparative analyst, not aligned with either coach
- Window: 2026-05-27 through 2026-06-05 inclusive
- Goal: a clean, evidence-based read of both plans, side by side, with a direct verdict on the best-supported approach for this window
Operating model
Sidney's live TrainingPeaks calendar is owned by Coach Gunnar. Coach Luca maintains an internal plan in the workspace athlete/calendar/ files and the rolling files; Luca's plan is not published to TrainingPeaks, by design, to avoid conflicts and overwrites against Gunnar's live workouts.
This assessment treats both plans as legitimate, parallel coaching positions for the same athlete in the same window. Sidney is the executor. She sees Gunnar's plan on TP and receives Luca's morning instructions and athlete-facing messages from the workspace files. Where the two plans diverge, the practical question is which prescription Sidney should execute on a given day.
Executive verdict
Plan A (Gunnar) is a coherent general-conditioning week. It is built around three planned 3-hour endurance rides with explicit race-pace fueling, two heavy strength sessions, two short neuromuscular sessions (Openers on May 30, ZIPP on June 2), and two true rest days. It reads as a normal build week for a healthy elite rider; it does not visibly modify for the recent SI/back flare, and it does not contain Ghost-specific sustained-pressure work or any gravel-surface session.
Plan B (Luca) is a staged return-to-load week that pivots to Ghost-specific build content in the back half. The front half (May 28 through June 1) is protective, no loaded strength, no sprints, with explicit decision gates tied to symptom response. The back half (June 2 through June 5) is Ghost-specific: threshold extension, gravel sustained pressure at race-relevant cadence, and ceiling support. Every dated calendar file carries explicit per-session reasoning, fueling targets, and contingency language.
Best-supported plan for this window: Plan B as written, with the recognition that Sidney executes from a mixed information environment. Plan A retains a few defensible elements (the May 27 fueling-rehearsal instruction has already proved valuable; May 28 rest aligns with both plans; June 5 rest is a reasonable alternative if Thursday creates fatigue). The remainder of Plan A contains four day-level prescriptions that are not appropriate for the current clinical context and one structural gap (no gravel-surface work) that materially under-prepares Sidney for Ghost.
Evidence reviewed
Plan A, Gunnar Holmgren
- Live TrainingPeaks workout objects for 2026-05-27 through 2026-06-05, captured in
athlete/context/2026-05-27-to-2026-06-05-trainingpeaks-workouts.md. Twelve TP items. May 27 has completed metrics; the remaining items are planned. - Direct evidence covers: workout title, planned duration, structured workout payload where present, description text, coach comments where present, and completion data on May 27.
- Evidence gaps: planned TSS, planned IF, and structured payloads are absent for most items. Only May 30 Openers has a planned TSS (81.8) and IF (0.64) plus a structured payload. There are no coach comments on any bike session in this window. The only coach comments are the recurring "No plyo jumps today" line on the May 29 and June 3 strength sessions.
Plan B, Coach Luca
- Dated calendar files for 2026-05-27 through 2026-06-05 in
athlete/calendar/. Every file is currently consistent with the rolling files. - Rolling files:
athlete/rolling-3-day.md(covers May 28 to May 30),athlete/rolling-7-day.md(May 28 to June 3), andathlete/rolling-3-week.md(Week 1 May 26 to June 1, Week 2 June 2 to June 8, Week 3 June 9 to June 15, plus taper outline). - All Luca files were last updated 2026-05-27 and reflect the post-flare, post-May 27-ride read.
Athlete context
- Profile, season goals, race calendar, travel schedule.
- Power-zone reference (
athlete/context/power-zones.md). - Daily logs for May 25 (back/SI flare report and same-day pivot), May 26, and May 27 (Sidney's unprompted morning gym circuit plus the 3:10 endurance ride).
- Athlete clinical context: Hashimoto's thyroiditis with documented recovery sensitivity, six weeks off the bike post-Worlds (Feb 1 to mid-March), Shanghai travel with no bike access (May 2 to May 16), return travel (May 16 to May 22), and a multi-day SI/back flare from approximately May 20 to May 25 with reported shooting leg pain.
What Plan A appears to be doing
Direct evidence
Total planned bike time: roughly 13 hours across eight bike days, plus two strength sessions and two rest days.
Likely intent
- Restore normal training rhythm after disruption. Three planned 3-hour endurance rides anchor the week and explicitly invoke race-pace fueling language.
- Preserve top-end neuromuscular qualities. The Openers session (May 30) and ZIPP session (June 2) are the only two non-strength stimulus days in the window, and both target maximal power and recruitment rather than threshold or sweet spot.
- Retain integrated strength. Two strength sessions in 10 days using the same template (heavy bilateral squat, heavy split squat, core circuit, ankle proprioception), with plyo cancelled.
- Use rest days for fatigue containment. May 28 and June 5 are unambiguous rest. May 29 evening Active Recovery and June 1 Active Recovery provide additional spacing.
- Embed race-day fueling into long endurance rides. Three of the four long endurance rides carry "80 g/hr, drink mix/gel as in a race" language.
What Plan A appears to believe about Sidney's readiness
Plan A reads as a coach treating Sidney as a healthy elite rider on a normal build week. There is no visible modification for the May 25 SI/back flare. The single coach comment in the window, "No plyo jumps today," appears on both strength sessions and is the same recurring template line seen on prior strength sessions, so it is not a flare-specific intervention.
Plan A character
Competent individualized coaching with a general-conditioning bias. The plan is more athlete-shaped than a generic library (Sidney-named strength title, race-as-rehearsal fueling language, structured Openers payload). It is not a focused Ghost-specific build: there is no sub-threshold sustained-pressure work, no threshold session, no tempo, no sweet spot, no gravel-surface session, and no ride longer than 3:00 (with 3-to-4 hour permission noted as a feel-based extension).
What Plan B appears to be doing
Direct evidence
Total planned bike time: roughly 13 hours across eight bike days plus one short strength maintenance and one short movement reset.
Likely intent
- Staged return-to-load through the front half. Each day from May 28 to June 1 is built around symptom absorption and confirmation, with explicit gates ("if Thursday is calm," "if Saturday landed hard," "if back is irritated"). The block does not assume the flare is fully resolved.
- Ghost-specific build through the back half. The June 2 to June 5 block covers three of the four physiological qualities Ghost demands: threshold extension (June 2), sub-threshold sustained pressure on gravel surface (June 4), and high-end response capacity (June 5). The fourth, race-duration durability, is scheduled for Week 2 (June 6 simulation).
- Explicit fueling rehearsal scaled to session demand. Every key day carries the same race-day fueling language: 80 g/hr at race bottle concentration, drink mix plus gel rotation, no solid bars.
- Light, event-appropriate strength. Strength returns only on June 3 as a 25 to 30 minute maintenance lift, with explicit "skip loaded hinge if back is irritated" guardrails and an expanded constraint set (skip split squat if balance asymmetric, replace hinge with cable pull-through if posture compromised, stop at any radiating symptom return).
- Bounded athlete-initiated additions. Every dated calendar file in the window now carries language about unprompted intensity and additions, scaled by day type (recovery, key, support).
What Plan B appears to believe about Sidney's readiness
Plan B reads as a coach treating Sidney as a rider four to six days clear of radiating leg pain who needs confirmation of stability before reintroducing force, sprint, and torque modalities. The plan does not over-react. The back half is genuinely Ghost-specific. The front half is genuinely protective.
Plan B character
Race-specific build coaching with explicit written rationale, structured workout payloads on every key day, scaled fueling targets, and built-in decision gates. The plan is more documented than Plan A: per-session Reasoning, Goal, Workout plan, Structured workout, Fuelling, Constraints, and Notes sections appear consistently. The plan is not yet on a live TP calendar, by design.
Day-by-day comparison
May 27 (Wednesday) — already executed against Plan A
Plan A: 3.0HR Endurance. Completed 3:10:09, 83.5 km, hrIF 0.60, hrTSS 128, 137 avg HR, 838 m climb, with race-pace fueling.
Plan B: Easy endurance back-check ride 1:00-1:15 plus unloaded movement reset only.
Contrast: Plan A treated this as a normal endurance day. Plan B treated it as a clinical-protection day at less than half the duration.
Risk and benefit: Sidney executed Plan A and produced useful evidence that aerobic riding is tolerable at hrIF 0.60. The morning gym circuit Sidney added independently was the higher-risk element on this day, not the bike work. Plan B's prescription was the safer pre-session decision standard given the symptom history; Plan A's outcome was not the wrong result.
Done. Track symptom response into Thursday and Friday.
May 28 (Thursday) — both plans converge on rest
Plan A: Rest.
Plan B: Recovery day, optional 0:30-0:45 very easy spin only if completely symptom-stable. Default is full rest.
Contrast: Functional alignment. Plan B is slightly more athlete-shaped (it explicitly absorbs the larger May 27 ride).
Preferred for this day: Either plan. Equivalent in practical effect.
May 29 (Friday) — sharp disagreement on strength
Plan A: Strength Sidney 1:00 with heavy squat 3 x 4-5, heavy split squat 3 x 4-5, core circuit; plus Active Recovery 1:00. Plyo cancelled by recurring template comment.
Plan B: Easy endurance reset 1:00-1:30 only. No loaded strength, no plyometrics, no max lifting, no trunk-loading gym work. Optional cadence lifts only if ride improves symptoms.
Contrast: Plan A reintroduces heavy bilateral and unilateral lower-body force production five days after radiating leg pain. Plan B explicitly removes all loaded strength for the same reason.
Risk and benefit: Heavy back squat and split squat at 3 x 4-5 produce some of the largest pelvic and SI-joint compressive loads in a standard gym session. The plyo cancellation reduces impact load but does not change the static load. Plan B's session is low-cost and low-mechanical-risk while still providing useful aerobic feedback.
Preferred for this day: Plan B, decisively.
May 30 (Saturday) — sharp disagreement on neuromuscular load
Plan A: Openers 2:00, planned TSS 81.8, IF 0.64. Structured: 20 min warm-up, 4 x 1 min ramp-ups, 5 min recovery, 6 x (30 sec at 110-130% + 15 sec easy), 15 min recovery, 6 x (30 sec at 110-140% + 30 sec easy), 20 min recovery, 6 x (20 sec at 110-150% + 40 sec easy), cool-down. 80 g/hr.
Plan B: Controlled endurance progression 2:00-2:45 at 65-75% FTP, road or smooth gravel. No opener bursts, no 110-150% efforts, no seated torque, no pressure blocks. 80 g/hr at race bottle concentration.
Contrast: Plan A prescribes sprint-pattern force production at 110 to 150% FTP, typically out-of-saddle with hip extension under high torque and trunk bracing. Plan B prescribes endurance duration extension with no neuromuscular violence.
Risk and benefit: Plan A's session is the highest-risk single day in either plan for the SI joint. Total session cost is moderate (TSS 81.8) but the load distribution is concentrated in high-force bursts. Plan B's session adds duration in a low-risk modality and provides useful aerobic and fueling evidence.
Preferred for this day: Plan B, decisively.
May 31 (Sunday) — disagreement on duration framing
Plan A: 3.0HR Endurance, "3-4 if you feel good, 80 g/hr."
Plan B: Recovery endurance with cadence resets, 1:00-2:30 scaled to Saturday's actual outcome. If Saturday was 2:30-2:45 clean, ride 2:00-2:30; if Saturday was 2:00-2:30 clean, ride 1:30-2:00; if Saturday was shortened, ride 1:00-1:30 easy or take another rest day. Explicit "no upward drift to 3 or 4 hours" constraint.
Contrast: Plan A treats Sunday as a long aerobic day with permission to extend to 4 hours. Plan B treats Sunday as a Saturday-dependent absorption day with explicit caps against drift.
Risk and benefit: Plan A's "3-4 if you feel good" is permissive and can drift upward in an athlete who tends to add load when she feels decent. Plan B's ladder structure adapts duration to actual Saturday outcome and is explicit about not drifting.
Preferred for this day: Plan B. The Saturday-dependent ladder is a better fit to the athlete's variable post-flare picture and to the absorption needs after a key day.
June 1 (Monday) — both plans converge on recovery
Plan A: Active Recovery 1:00 "Easy ride."
Plan B: Recovery day off-bike, optional 15-20 min movement reset.
Contrast: Plan A leaves a 1-hour bike door open. Plan B defaults to off-bike. Plan A's "Easy ride" prescription without a power or duration cap can drift; Plan B is explicit about default rest.
Preferred for this day: Plan B. The optional walk or movement reset preserves the option of light activity if it improves how Sidney feels, without the drift risk of an unbounded easy ride.
June 2 (Tuesday) — clear philosophical difference
Plan A: ZIPP 2:00, "12X15s All out sprints spaced through the ride. Maximum quality. I want to see your max power."
Plan B: Threshold with 2 x 22 min at 94-99% FTP, 2:30-2:45. Structured warm-up 40 min plus 2 x (22 min threshold + 9 min recovery) plus 35 min endurance plus 10 min cool-down. 80 g/hr and 600-800 mg sodium per hour. Contingency to reduce to 2 x 16-18 min if Saturday created lingering fatigue.
Contrast: Plan A targets max-power neuromuscular recruitment. Plan B targets sustained threshold capacity.
Risk and benefit: Plan A's 12 x 15 sec all-out sprints develop top-end power and fast-twitch recruitment. For Ghost specifically, top-end power is needed only to respond to surges; 12 x 15 sec will not improve the capacity to hold 82-88% FTP for hours on gravel. Plan A's session is also mechanically loaded for the back due to standing sprint position. Plan B's threshold session directly trains the sustained pressure capacity Ghost requires.
Preferred for this day: Plan B, with the contingency in force.
June 3 (Wednesday) — agreement on shape, sharp disagreement on strength dose
Plan A: Strength Sidney 1:00 (same heavy template as May 29) plus 2.0HR Endurance.
Plan B: Endurance ride 2:00-2:15 with 4 x 1 min high-cadence drills plus Strength maintenance 0:25-0:30 (trap bar hinge 2 x 4 at 60-70% 1RM or RPE 6-7, step-up or split squat 2 x 5 each side at RPE 6-7, side plank 2 x 30-40 sec each side, calf raise 2 x 8 at RPE 6-7) with expanded constraint set.
Contrast: Both plans pair endurance with strength on Wednesday. Plan A repeats the heavy template. Plan B uses a 25 to 30 minute maintenance lift explicitly designed to "leave the gym feeling sharper, not loaded."
Risk and benefit: Plan A's heavy template restored midweek is overload for a build week that already includes a Tuesday key day and a Thursday key day. The same SI-loading concern from May 29 applies. Plan B's maintenance lift is appropriately scaled to the build phase.
Preferred for this day: Plan B.
June 4 (Thursday) — Ghost-specific gold standard vs general aerobic
Plan A: 3.0HR Endurance, "3-4 if you feel good, 80 g/hr."
Plan B: Gravel sustained pressure 2:45-3:00 with 3 x 20 min at 82-88% FTP, mostly seated 80-90 rpm, gravel or mixed terrain. 80 g/hr at race bottle concentration, race bottle, race product placement. Equipment section. Contingency: stop the set if back tightens.
Contrast: Plan A prescribes a long aerobic ride. Plan B prescribes the single most Ghost-specific session in either plan: sub-threshold sustained pressure on gravel surface with race-pace fueling and explicit equipment rehearsal.
Risk and benefit: Plan A's session is safe and aerobic but does not rehearse the actual demand of Ghost. Plan B's session is the closest match in the window to race-day demand. Plan B has explicitly removed the lower-cadence torque emphasis from earlier versions, defaulting to 80-90 rpm with surface and pressure preserved as the work.
Preferred for this day: Plan B. This is the strongest individual session in either plan for Ghost specificity.
June 5 (Friday) — taper-style rest vs ceiling support
Plan A: Rest.
Plan B: Default: 75-90 min easy endurance plus 3 x 1 min openers, fueled normally. Upside option: 5 x 3 min at 112-118% FTP, 4 min easy between.
Contrast: Plan A takes a true rest day. Plan B's default is a light openers session; the full VO2 set is the upside only when Thursday was unusually clean.
Risk and benefit: Plan A's rest is the simplest fatigue-management call ahead of Week 2's planned long simulation. Plan B's default openers session is a reasonable middle ground that preserves a small high-end touch without competing with Saturday.
Preferred for this day: Plan B's default (light + 3 x 1 min openers). Plan A's rest is also acceptable if Thursday created any fatigue.
Comparative strengths and weaknesses
Plan A strengths
- Strong race-fueling language. "80 g/hr, no gogo squeeze/clif bars, drink mix/gel as in a race" is the most memorable single piece of athlete-facing coaching language in either plan. This was already validated in execution on May 27.
- Explicit aerobic backbone. Three planned 3-hour endurance rides anchor the week with consistent fueling instruction.
- Directive coach voice on neuromuscular days. "I want to see your max power" on June 2 is the only first-person coach voice in the window.
- Unambiguous rest days. May 28 and June 5 are flat rest with no ambiguity.
- Coherent week-level rhythm. The plan reads as a real plan, not random sessions.
Plan A weaknesses
- No visible modification for the May 25 SI/back flare. The plan reads as a normal build week. The only coach comment in the window ("No plyo jumps today") is a recurring template note, not a flare-specific intervention.
- Heavy strength template prescribed twice (May 29 and June 3) within 10 days of radiating leg pain.
- High-end sprint and opener work prescribed twice (May 30 Openers, June 2 ZIPP) within the same window.
- No tempo, sweet spot, threshold, or sustained sub-threshold pressure work anywhere in the 10-day window. The middle of the intensity distribution is absent.
- No gravel-surface session of any kind.
- Longest ride is 3:00, with open-ended "3-4 if you feel good" permission. The capacity to ride 4:35 at race pace on imperfect surface is not built by this prescription.
- Permissive recovery language. "Easy ride" on Active Recovery and "3-4 if you feel good" on long days both allow drift in an athlete known to add load when she feels good.
- Sparse planning detail. Most workouts lack planned TSS, planned IF, structured payloads, or written rationale.
Plan B strengths
- Explicit per-session rationale. Every dated calendar file carries Objective, Goal, Reasoning, Workout plan, Structured workout, Fuelling, Constraints, and Notes sections.
- Internally consistent across the dated calendar, rolling-3-day, rolling-7-day, and rolling-3-week files. All Luca files were updated 2026-05-27 and reflect the same coaching position.
- Strong Ghost specificity in the back half. Threshold extension (June 2), gravel-surface sustained pressure (June 4), and ceiling support (June 5) cover three of the four key Ghost qualities.
- Race-day fueling language adopted on key days. Same memorable phrasing as Plan A.
- Decision gates throughout. Contingencies tied to Thursday symptom status, Saturday absorption, Friday fatigue, gravel surface conditions, back tightness, and posture stability.
- Strength is event-appropriate. A single maintenance lift on June 3 with an expanded constraint set, no heavy bilateral or unilateral work.
- Bounded athlete-initiated additions. Each file carries explicit language about not adding unprompted gym work or intensity, scaled by day type.
- Saturday-dependent Sunday ladder. Duration on May 31 adapts to Saturday's actual outcome rather than assuming Saturday landed at the top of its range.
- Equipment rehearsal language on the gravel-specific day. Tires, bottles, gels, repair kit, and mechanical-safety abort criteria are written into June 4.
Plan B weaknesses
- Not on Sidney's live TrainingPeaks calendar. Sidney sees Plan A on TP and must rely on Luca's morning messages or her own discretion to follow Plan B. This is an inherent constraint of the operating model and not a coaching defect, but it is the practical risk that matters most.
- Back-half density is real. Tuesday threshold, Wednesday endurance plus strength, Thursday gravel sustained pressure, Friday openers or VO2 is four meaningful days in a row. Each day's contingency must work as designed.
- June 4 gravel session still carries some back risk even at 80-90 rpm cadence, because sustained sub-threshold pressure over imperfect surface engages the trunk and pelvis through posture stabilization. The contingency to stop the set if back tightens is the right gate.
- The May 27 file already records that the planned session was not what Sidney executed. That is a transparent and honest note but it also highlights that Sidney's actual execution on key days depends on her own choices and on Luca's morning communication.
Risk assessment
Plan A downside risk
- Acute mechanical risk to the SI and back is concentrated on four specific days: May 29 heavy strength, May 30 Openers, June 2 ZIPP, June 3 heavy strength. Each of these contains modalities (heavy bilateral or unilateral loading, standing high-power sprinting) that have an above-baseline probability of re-aggravating an SI/back history. The plyo cancellation reduces but does not remove the load.
- Race-outcome risk against Ghost is high. Ten days with no sustained-pressure work, no threshold session, and no gravel-surface session leaves Sidney materially under-prepared for the race. Aerobic depth from three 3-hour rides and top-end power from two sprint sessions are not the limiting capacities at Ghost.
- Drift risk on permissive days. "3-4 if you feel good" and "Easy ride" prescriptions can be executed at meaningfully higher cost than intended.
Plan B downside risk
- Cumulative density in the back half. The June 2 to June 5 sequence is real work for an athlete who is still post-flare. Every contingency must function.
- Execution risk via the communication channel. Plan B influences Sidney's training only through Luca's athlete-facing messages and the workspace files. If Sidney chooses to execute Plan A on TP rather than Plan B, the protective intent of Plan B does not reach the bike.
- Lower top-end stimulus. Plan B preserves high-end response capacity through June 5 openers or the upside VO2 session, but it does not include sprint-specific work in this window. For the broader cyclocross season later in the year, this is acceptable; for the next four weeks, it is appropriate.
Which plan carries the higher downside risk
For acute injury risk in the next two weeks: Plan A, primarily through May 29 heavy strength and May 30 Openers. The downside is a re-flare that loses two to four weeks and damages the Ghost build.
For race-outcome risk against Ghost: Plan A, because the plan does not build the event-specific durability Sidney needs to race for the win.
For cumulative training-load risk if Plan B is executed in full: Plan B's back half is dense but contingencies are designed to manage it. The downside is heavier-than-intended fatigue into the planned June 6 long simulation, which Plan B addresses by defaulting June 5 to the lighter version.
The asymmetry favors Plan B. Plan B's risks are largely containable by its own contingencies. Plan A's risks are concentrated on specific days where the modality itself is the wrong tool for the current athlete state.
Best-supported approach for this window
Plan B as written, on every day where the two plans diverge. Plan A retains a few defensible elements that can be carried into the executable approach without conflict:
- May 27 fueling instruction is already validated. Sidney executed Plan A's prescription cleanly at hrIF 0.60. The fueling language ("80 g/hr, drink mix/gel as in a race") has been adopted into Plan B's key days. No further action.
- May 28 rest is shared by both plans.
- June 5 rest is acceptable as an alternative to Plan B's default openers session if Thursday June 4 creates any fatigue.
The remainder of Plan A should not be executed:
- May 29 Strength Sidney should not be done as written. Heavy bilateral and split-squat loading at 3 x 4-5 is the wrong modality for an athlete five days clear of radiating leg pain.
- May 30 Openers should not be done as written. Sprint bursts at 110-150% FTP six days after the first symptom-free ride is the wrong modality for the current state.
- June 2 ZIPP should not be done as written. All-out sprints are not the right tool for the Ghost target and add unnecessary mechanical risk.
- June 3 Strength Sidney should not be done as written. The same heavy template is overload for the build week that already includes a Tuesday key day and a Thursday key day.
- June 4 3.0HR Endurance is safe but under-specific. Plan B's gravel sustained pressure session is the most Ghost-specific day in either plan and is the better use of the day.
Practical execution guidance
Given Sidney executes from TP and Luca's plan lives in the workspace, the realistic execution path for this window is:
- For each day where the two plans diverge, Sidney needs a clear morning instruction. Luca's morning plan messages should explicitly name what to skip from TP and what to do instead, particularly on May 29, May 30, June 2, June 3, and June 4.
- Sidney's autonomy matters. The May 27 evidence shows Sidney chose Plan A's longer ride when both plans were available. The cleanest path is for Luca's morning messages to make the case for Plan B's prescription with the clinical context attached, not just to instruct.
- The athlete-initiated additions constraint is now in every Plan B file. That language ("no extra gym work and no unprompted intensity. If something extra is on your mind, message first") needs to reach Sidney through the morning messages, not just sit in the calendar files.
- Symptom data drives the gates. Plan B's contingencies depend on Sidney's symptom reports each morning. The plan works only if those reports actually arrive.
- The June 4 gravel session is the most important single day in the window. If only one day in this 10-day block is going to land cleanly to Plan B's specification, it should be June 4.
Key uncertainties
- Whether Sidney will execute Plan B's prescription on the four contested days (May 29, May 30, June 2, June 3) or default to what shows up on her TP calendar.
- Whether the back response after the May 27 combined gym-plus-ride day stays clean through Thursday and Friday. The next 48 hours determine whether Plan B's back-half Ghost-specific work is feasible.
- Whether Plan A will be revised during the window. Plan A as currently published does not contain visible flare-aware modifications; any same-day or week-week revision by Gunnar would change this assessment.
- Planned TSS, IF, and structured payloads for most of Plan A are absent. Load estimation for Plan A is directional, not precise. The picture would sharpen with that data.
- No HRV, sleep, or wellness data is in the workspace for this window. Plan B's symptom-led gates depend on athlete self-reporting.
Confidence
- Plan A assessment confidence: high on the structural read; moderate on the precise intent because most workouts carry no written rationale.
- Plan B assessment confidence: high. Every day carries explicit per-session reasoning, contingency language, and structured workout payload where applicable.
- Comparative verdict confidence: high. The two plans now differ cleanly at the day level on May 29, May 30, May 31, June 2, June 3, and June 4. The decision logic on each of those days is well supported by the available evidence.