How Reviews Work

The ride review pulls together:

• What the session was supposed to do (target power, intervals, duration, which gap it was addressing)
• What actually happened (your power, heart rate, duration, zone distribution, decoupling)
• If it was an interval session: how each rep compared to target, whether you faded across reps, how you paced within intervals, recovery quality between reps
• Your recent 2 weeks of training — did you complete what was planned? Any patterns?
• Your RPE and comments, if you provided them
• What's coming next in the plan

The AI generates a short, direct review — 2-3 sentences, in the voice of a human coach. It never references internal system terms. It tells you what the ride accomplished, what to pay attention to, and what's next.

The weekly review answers four questions:

1. 1Did your quality sessions deliver what they were designed for?
2. 2Are there patterns worth naming (consistently cutting rides short, improving on long efforts, etc.)?
3. 3What's coming next week and why?
4. 4One actionable coaching note.

It also sees the previous week's review so it can escalate emerging patterns rather than repeating itself.

At the end of each 4-week block, you get a strategic assessment:

• "Did it work?" — Not whether you did every workout, but whether the metrics moved. Did your long ride power improve week over week? Did your heart rate drift decrease? Did threshold tolerance increase?
• "What did we learn about you?" — Coach-level insight: "Volume loaded well but sweet spot sessions struggled — your aerobic base is responding but threshold tolerance needs more gradual loading."
• "What's next?" — Strategic direction for the next block, tied to what the data showed.

RPE (rate of perceived exertion) captures what power data can't — heat, poor sleep, work stress, motivation, how your legs actually felt.

When your perceived effort doesn't match your power output, that's information. High RPE with low power might mean accumulated fatigue or life stress. Low RPE with high power could signal a fitness breakthrough.

You have a 24-hour window to add RPE and a comment after each ride. If you don't, the review generates from data alone. If you do, the review weaves in your subjective experience — "You said it felt hard despite moderate power. Could be accumulated fatigue from the long ride two days ago."

Yes, in several ways:

• Each new training block inherits the previous block's peak metrics. Progression starts where you left off, not from scratch.
• The review system tracks your last 2 weeks of execution. If you consistently cut short on Wednesdays or overperform on weekends, the coach notices.
• As your FTP and aerobic threshold change, zone boundaries auto-adjust and the gap analysis re-runs with current data, shifting priorities.
• Each review sees the previous reviews to avoid repetition and to escalate patterns rather than mentioning them once.

A few principles that shape everything:

• Every session needs a "why." Athletes who understand the purpose execute better. "3 hours Zone 2" means nothing. "Building the aerobic base that lets you hold 200 watts at hour 5 without your heart rate drifting" creates buy-in.
• Protect athletes from themselves. Most self-coached cyclists need to be held back more often than pushed forward.
• Reviews should contextualize, not just report. A number without context is useless. Was your RPE-to-power ratio shifting? Is it accumulated fatigue or life stress? The review tells you what the ride meant, not just what happened.
• Handle the messy stuff well. Illness, travel, missed weeks, motivation dips — that's where real coaching earns its value. Not mechanical rescheduling, but intelligent adaptation.

The test we apply: would a great human cycling coach say this? If it sounds like a system notification, we rewrite it.