Choose a question and a review window
Write the question before opening the report. Examples include whether the athlete is executing the assigned targets more consistently, whether a recording change explains missing work, or whether a new competition mark should prompt a review of future targets.
Select a period that contains the sessions relevant to that question. Record the start and end dates and the comparison period. Equal-length windows help organize a review, but they do not guarantee equal training content. A meet week and a week without competition may contain very different assignments.
Start with the individual athlete when the conversation is about their progress. A team average can change because different athletes contributed results. Use group summaries to find records worth inspecting, then return to the individual sessions.
Check the records before interpreting them
Confirm athlete, event or segment, distance, date, unit, and timing method where recorded. Look for unassigned finishes, duplicate results, queued changes, and corrections that have not been reviewed. Verify a surprising result against the original record before using it to update a target.
Distinguish missing data from recorded noncompletion. A runner may have completed work that was never entered, or followed an adjusted assignment while the original rep list stayed unchanged. A completion percentage describes the stored records, so ask what the denominator contains.
Check competition and practice records in their own context. A practice capture is not automatically an official meet result. Indoor and outdoor marks, hand and fully automatic timing, wind information, and event details should remain visible when they matter to the comparison.
If mileage is part of the discussion, reconcile actual distance, prescribed-distance fallbacks, and outside runs first. The team mileage log guide includes a worksheet for that step.
Compare work with matching conditions
Find repeated sessions or segments that answer the review question. Check distance or duration, the intended target, recovery, start procedure, timing method, and relevant setting. Identical workout titles alone do not establish that two sessions were equivalent.
For example, a faster average from a session with different recovery may be useful to discuss, but it cannot isolate what caused the change. Keep the changed condition beside the observation. Avoid turning a small collection of practice times into a confident prediction of a race outcome.
Show the number of timed entries behind an average. If only one athlete's best rep is recorded in one period while every rep is recorded in the next, the two averages represent different samples. Consistent capture is part of a useful review process.
Use a worksheet that keeps observation and decision separate
Copy the table for a review meeting. The examples are prompts, not claims about a particular athlete. Fill in the actual source session and date so another coach can check the same record.
Scroll the table horizontally to see the follow-up column.
| Question | Evidence to bring | Check before deciding | Possible follow-up |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the work recorded? | Assignments, completed segments, and pending saves | Changed plan or missing entry? | Name the person who will correct the record |
| Did execution change? | Repeated timed segments and their targets | Same distance, recovery, and capture method? | Choose a comparable session to review next |
| Is the reference mark current? | Verified competition or trial result | Correct athlete, event, date, and context? | Coach reviews future targets |
| Does the summary make sense? | Session reports and athlete explanation | Duplicates, unknowns, or inconsistent logging? | Agree on one recording convention |
Leave a field blank when the answer is unknown and assign a follow-up. Filling every box with a guess makes the worksheet look complete while weakening the review.
Ask the athlete to explain the session
Use specific, neutral questions: “What assignment did you follow on Tuesday?” or “Does this recorded finish match what you remember?” This gives the athlete a chance to identify a changed instruction, misunderstood target, or entry error.
Reported effort can add context to the session, but it is not a diagnosis or an automatic instruction to increase or reduce training. Keep coaching observations within your role and use your program's established process for health concerns. This worksheet does not assess medical readiness.
Respect who can see the discussion. Share the assignment and necessary follow-up with the people responsible for it; keep sensitive details in the appropriate private process. A useful public-facing summary of the work does not need a detailed personal explanation.
Leave with one clear next step
Write the action, owner, and review date. For example: “Coach Lee checks the meet result before updating the reference mark,” or “Athlete and recording coach confirm which distance the completion report should include.” These are verifiable actions.
If you change future targets, check the intended reference event and preserve deliberate custom values. Do not retroactively replace the targets from completed work simply to make an old report agree with today's information.
At the next review, check whether the action happened before adding another task. A short chain of resolved questions is easier to use than a long list of unexplained trend labels.
How to use PaceCommand's Period review
In Team performance, Period review offers recent, season, and custom date ranges, with team, training-group, and individual-athlete views. It shows completion, timed-rep target accuracy, sessions, reported effort, and comparisons with the previous matching period. Meet results and records remain separate sources to inspect.
Comparable rep trends match the stored segment title and distance or duration. They require repeated timed entries in both periods; they do not automatically establish matching recovery, surface, or timing conditions. Check the underlying workouts before interpreting an average change.
Use the report as the starting point for the worksheet, then follow the links back to the relevant work. Consistent assistant handoffs and clear individual targets make the next review easier to explain.