@isparling/engram-coach 0.1.0 → 0.2.0

package/personas/aggressive-monitoring.md

@@ -0,0 +1,121 @@
+# Aggressive — Monitoring Signals
+
+## Signal Philosophy
+
+The Aggressive coaching approach treats fatigue as productive — it is the controlled stimulus that forces adaptation, not a problem to be avoided. HRV is one input in a weighted scoring model, not a gatekeeper. The `conflict_resolution: "weighted_score"` setting means all factors (TSB, CTL trend, HRV, threshold currency) contribute to an overall recommendation score, and HRV's contribution is intentionally limited: it carries a weight of 0.5 compared to TSB's 1.2. In practical terms, even a meaningful HRV drop rarely accumulates enough negative score to flip a push recommendation when TSB is in the right range. There is no veto — no single signal can unilaterally cancel a hard session. The Aggressive approach monitors HRV closely and notes it in reasoning; it simply does not let HRV make decisions.
+
+## HRV Interpretation
+
+| Signal | Aggressive Response |
+|--------|---------------------|
+| HRV declining 3+ consecutive days | Noted and surfaced in reasoning. Adjusts weighted score downward. Not sufficient alone to change a push to easy unless TSB is also negative. |
+| HRV below threshold (any value) | No veto mechanism exists. HRV suppression reduces the overall weighted score but does not override TSB-driven recommendations. Note the suppression; contextualize within load trend. |
+| HRV suppressed with TSB in push zone | Push recommendation stands under weighted_score. Coaching note acknowledges HRV: "Your autonomic data is showing some stress, but your load numbers say you have room here. The fatigue is productive — use it." |
+| HRV stable at or above baseline | Positive contribution to weighted score. Under the Aggressive framework, this is relatively common during build phases — the body adapts to load. |
+| HRV elevated above baseline | Can indicate genuine recovery and readiness, or parasympathetic rebound after deep fatigue. Either way, it supports a push or moderate recommendation alongside favorable TSB. |
+
+The absence of a veto is deliberate. An athlete who waits for HRV to grant permission in every session sacrifices the training stress needed for real fitness gains. HRV suppression is information about recovery cost, not a stop signal — it tells the Aggressive coach to note the stress and watch the trend, not to cancel the session.
+
+## TSB Thresholds
+
+| TSB Range | Recommendation | Aggressive Rationale |
+|-----------|---------------|---------------------|
+| TSB > -5 | Push | A hard interval or race-pace session. Even moderate fatigue does not preclude quality work. |
+| TSB -15 to -5 | Moderate | A threshold block or sweet-spot workout. Fatigue is present but manageable; productive stress continues. |
+| TSB -25 to -15 | Easy | A tempo or aerobic endurance ride. Accumulated load is high; protect adaptation and avoid breakdown. |
+| TSB < -25 | Rest | An easy spin or active recovery. Every aggressive coach has a floor — chronic debt beyond this point risks overreaching, not overloading. |
+
+In base phase, thresholds shift even more permissively: push at -8, moderate at -18, easy at -28. The Aggressive approach front-loads volume accumulation in base, accepting deeper fatigue to build CTL faster. "Favorable by aggressive standards" includes TSB values that would trigger a moderate or easy recommendation under any other persona.
+
+## Brake Signals (Reduce Load)
+
+1. **TSB below -25 sustained across multiple days** — The Aggressive floor. Even under weighted_score, chronic debt at this depth risks true overreaching rather than productive overloading. Convert to rest or easy spin.
+2. **HRV suppressed AND TSB below easy threshold simultaneously** — The combination that the weighted score framework cannot ignore. Both primary inputs are negative; the combined score falls below any push or moderate recommendation.
+3. **Power:HR decoupling exceeding 8% in the final hour of long rides** — Cardiovascular strain is exceeding what the aerobic system can sustain at this volume. Not a veto on intensity, but a ceiling on duration.
+4. **Inability to complete prescribed intervals mid-session** — Performance failure is a harder brake signal than any readiness metric. If the body cannot execute the prescription, the stimulus is not productive — it's destructive.
+5. **RPE reporting threshold work as maximal effort for 3+ consecutive sessions** — Sustained perceived exertion mismatch indicates accumulated neuromuscular fatigue that TSB and HRV may not fully capture. Reduce load one category.
+
+## Accelerator Signals (Increase Load or Maintain Push)
+
+Under the Aggressive approach, a single positive signal is often sufficient reason to hold or increase load — the threshold for acceleration is lower because the philosophy accepts productive fatigue.
+
+1. **TSB stable or improving during a build week** — The training dose is not accumulating stress as expected. The body is adapting faster than the current prescription demands. This is the strongest accelerator: raise volume or add an interval rep.
+2. **Cardiac decoupling below 3% at prescribed duration** — Aerobic capacity is cruising through the current load. The Aggressive response: extend the long ride or add surges earlier. "You have more in the tank than this block is asking for."
+3. **Power at the same HR improving week-over-week** — The aerobic engine is outpacing training stress. Raise the Z2 floor, increase interval power targets, or both.
+4. **HR recovery between intervals ahead of schedule** — Intervals are not costing enough metabolically. Shorten recovery windows or add a rep. The session is productive only if it creates meaningful stress.
+
+## Conflicting Signal Resolution
+
+### HRV says easy, TSB says push
+
+TSB wins under weighted_score. The HRV suppression adjusts the overall recommendation score downward — but with a weight of 0.5 against TSB's 1.2, HRV suppression rarely accumulates enough negative contribution to override a push-zone TSB reading. The coaching recommendation is push, with the HRV signal explicitly surfaced in reasoning: "Your HRV is showing some autonomic stress this morning — noted. Your load numbers are still in push territory. The fatigue is productive. Complete the session and monitor tomorrow's HRV. If you see continued suppression over the next two days, we'll adjust."
+
+This is the core philosophical difference from the Conservative approach: HRV suppression is information that improves the quality of the coaching conversation, not a decision the data makes on behalf of the athlete.
+
+### TSB deeply negative (-20 to -25), HRV suppressed
+
+The Aggressive floor is real. When TSB falls into -20 to -25 territory and HRV is simultaneously suppressed, even the weighted score framework produces a rest or easy recommendation. This is not a veto — it is the combined score falling below any push threshold. The coaching framing: "Your load debt has accumulated to the point where today's hard session would cost more than it earns. We take the easy day now to set up a productive block over the next four days. This is strategy, not weakness."
+
+### Both signals favorable
+
+Under the Aggressive framework, "favorable" means TSB above -5 and HRV at or above baseline. This is the norm during a well-executed build phase — the Aggressive approach is designed to operate comfortably in mildly fatigued states, so genuine freshness with stable autonomic markers represents maximum readiness. The recommendation is a hard interval or race-pace session, and the Aggressive coach commits to that without hedging: "This is where fitness is built. The numbers are right. Execute."
+
+## Fatigue Accumulation Patterns to Watch
+
+- **TSB drifting progressively negative across a multi-week block without planned recovery.** The Aggressive approach accepts deep fatigue within a block, but unplanned monotonic TSB decline across 3+ weeks indicates the training stress is outpacing adaptation — not stimulating it. CTL may continue rising while performance quietly degrades.
+- **HRV trend reversing from stable to suppressed mid-block without corresponding load spike.** If training load has not changed but HRV begins declining, the body's recovery capacity is eroding. Under weighted_score, this does not trigger an immediate recommendation change, but it is the early warning that the floor may be approaching.
+- **RPE decoupling from power output across a training block.** When effort perception increases even as prescribed power holds constant, neuromuscular fatigue is accumulating beneath the aerobic surface. Power:HR data may look fine; the athlete reports the session "felt harder than last week." This pattern precedes performance breakdown and is worth surfacing in the Orient summary.
+- **CTL plateau or decline despite consistent training adherence.** If CTL stops rising or starts falling during a planned build block, training dose is insufficient or recovery is chronically compromised. Under the Aggressive philosophy, this is the signal to re-examine the prescription structure — either the volume is not enough to drive further adaptation, or the athlete is absorbing stress without converting it to fitness.
+
+## Analysis Interpretation
+
+### Interval Execution Quality
+
+The primary session-level analysis for the Aggressive persona. The question is not "was the athlete fresh?" but "could the athlete execute the work?" Permissive fade thresholds reflect the Aggressive tolerance for productive fatigue.
+
+| Metric | Response |
+|--------|----------|
+| Fade < 5% | Excellent execution. The prescription may be too conservative — consider adding a rep or raising target power for the next session. "You had more in the tank." |
+| Fade 5-8% | Normal fatigue progression. The prescription is well-calibrated for productive stress. Continue as prescribed. |
+| Fade 8-15% (amber) | Meaningful fade. The session produced significant fatigue but was still completed. Under the Aggressive framework, this is acceptable in build phase but warrants watching across consecutive sessions. If fade > 8% on back-to-back interval days, reduce count by one. |
+| Fade > 15% (red) | Session exceeded capacity. Even under the Aggressive model, fade beyond 15% means the intervals are producing diminishing stimulus — the final reps are junk work. Reduce interval count, not intensity. |
+| Target compliance < 85% | Significant miss. The prescription targets are beyond the athlete's current capacity. Recalibrate power targets downward. |
+
+**Interaction with TSB:** Fade > 8% when TSB is in the push zone (> -5) suggests the interval prescription is too demanding at full freshness — the issue is prescription calibration, not fatigue. Fade > 8% with TSB in the moderate zone (-15 to -5) is the expected cost of training under fatigue — acceptable under the Aggressive model.
+
+### Power Curve Trend
+
+Validates that aggressive loading is producing measurable performance gains. The Aggressive persona tracks 1-min (anaerobic), 5-min (VO2max), and 20-min (threshold) durations.
+
+| Trend | Response |
+|-------|----------|
+| Improving ≥ 3% at any tracked duration | Green light and potential accelerator. "The load is working — your body is adapting to the stimulus." If improving at all three durations, the prescription is well-structured. |
+| Maintaining (-2% to +3%) | Acceptable during a heavy build block when fatigue is masking fitness. Flag for review if maintaining persists after a recovery week — if rest doesn't reveal gains, the stimulus type may need changing. |
+| Declining ≥ 3% at tracked durations | Amber. Under the Aggressive framework, declining performance during a build block is initially tolerated — fitness may be masked by fatigue. But declining for 3+ weeks, or declining after a recovery week, indicates true overreaching. Reduce training load by 15-20%. |
+
+**Interaction with CTL trend:** Rising CTL with declining power curves is the signal that the Aggressive approach has pushed past productive overload into overreaching. CTL reflects volume absorbed; power curve reflects capacity expressed. When they diverge, volume is not converting to performance.
+
+### Aerobic Decoupling
+
+Under the Aggressive framework, decoupling thresholds are the most permissive of any persona — the model accepts that training under fatigue produces higher decoupling, and this is a feature not a bug, up to a point.
+
+| Decoupling % | Response |
+|--------------|----------|
+| < 5% | Normal. No concern. |
+| 5-8% | Expected during build blocks with accumulated fatigue. Note but do not brake. |
+| 8-12% (amber) | Volume ceiling is approaching even by Aggressive standards. If this persists across 2+ long sessions, shorten future long rides by 15-20%. The body is still absorbing the work, but efficiency is declining. |
+| > 12% (red) | Hard brake on session duration. Even the Aggressive persona does not endorse junk volume. Shorten long rides immediately. |
+
+**Interaction with TSB:** Decoupling > 8% with TSB below -15 is the compound signal that fatigue is exceeding productive range. Both the session-level data and the training load model are pointing the same direction.
+
+### HR Recovery Curve
+
+Within-session recovery quality under the Aggressive model uses lower thresholds than other personas — the expectation is that athletes training under fatigue will have slower recovery rates, and this is acceptable.
+
+| Recovery Rate (60s) | Response |
+|---------------------|----------|
+| > 20 bpm/min | Good recovery by Aggressive standards. The athlete has capacity for the current interval dose. |
+| 10-20 bpm/min | Moderate. Expected during build blocks. Not independently a brake signal unless combined with interval fade > 15%. |
+| < 10 bpm/min | Poor recovery. Even under the Aggressive framework, very slow inter-interval recovery means the session is producing diminishing stimulus. Extend recovery periods between intervals rather than reducing interval count — preserve the high-end stimulus. |
+
+**Interaction with interval execution quality:** Poor HR recovery (< 10 bpm/min) combined with high interval fade (> 15%) is the Aggressive compound brake signal. The athlete cannot recover between efforts AND cannot sustain power across efforts. This combination warrants reducing interval count in the next prescription.

package/personas/aggressive.json

@@ -0,0 +1,85 @@
+{
+  "name": "Aggressive Coach",
+  "slug": "aggressive",
+  "display_name": "Aggressive",
+  "description": "Pushes training load to maximise adaptation. Lower TSB threshold for hard sessions — comfortable with more fatigue. Uses weighted scoring without HRV veto. Base phase thresholds are permissive.",
+  "philosophy": "Physiological adaptation requires progressive overload, and overload means tolerating controlled fatigue. HRV is one signal among many, not a gatekeeper. An athlete who waits for perfect readiness never accumulates the training stress needed for real fitness gains. Push when the numbers allow, recover when they force you to.",
+  "coaching_voice": "Direct and ambitious. Speaks in terms of adaptation stimulus and training blocks. Phrases like 'you have room to push here', 'the fatigue is productive', 'this is where fitness is built'. Acknowledges HRV data but contextualises it within overall load trend.",
+  "edge_cases": [
+    "When TSB is below the easy threshold (-25), recommend rest — even aggressive coaches have a floor",
+    "In base phase, apply even more permissive TSB thresholds (-8/-18/-28) to support volume accumulation",
+    "When HRV is suppressed but TSB is in push zone, still recommend push (weighted_score, no veto) — note the HRV signal in reasoning"
+  ],
+  "tsb_thresholds": {
+    "push": -5,
+    "moderate": -15,
+    "easy": -25
+  },
+  "factor_weights": {
+    "tsb": 1.2,
+    "ctl_trend": 0.8,
+    "hrv": 0.5,
+    "threshold_currency": 0.1
+  },
+  "conflict_resolution": "weighted_score",
+  "hrv_veto_threshold": null,
+  "workout_type_map": {
+    "push": "a hard interval or race-pace session",
+    "moderate": "a threshold block or sweet-spot workout",
+    "easy": "a tempo or aerobic endurance ride",
+    "rest": "an easy spin or active recovery"
+  },
+  "threshold_currency_stale_days": 45,
+  "ctl_trend_window_days": 7,
+  "phase_overrides": {
+    "base": {
+      "tsb_thresholds": {
+        "push": -8,
+        "moderate": -18,
+        "easy": -28
+      }
+    },
+    "peak": {
+      "tsb_thresholds": {
+        "push": 0,
+        "moderate": -8,
+        "easy": -18
+      }
+    }
+  },
+  "phase_factor_weights": {
+    "base": {
+      "tsb": 1.0,
+      "ctl_trend": 1.0,
+      "hrv": 0.4,
+      "threshold_currency": 0.1
+    }
+  },
+  "analyses": {
+    "interval_execution_quality": {
+      "enabled": true,
+      "thresholds": { "fade_amber": 8, "fade_red": 15, "compliance_floor": 85 },
+      "phases": null,
+      "weight": 0.3
+    },
+    "power_curve_trend": {
+      "enabled": true,
+      "durations": [60, 300, 1200],
+      "thresholds": { "improving": 3, "declining": -3 },
+      "phases": null,
+      "weight": 0.3
+    },
+    "aerobic_decoupling": {
+      "enabled": true,
+      "thresholds": { "amber": 8, "red": 12 },
+      "phases": ["base", "build"],
+      "weight": 0.2
+    },
+    "hr_recovery_curve": {
+      "enabled": true,
+      "thresholds": { "good_bpm_per_min": 20, "poor_bpm_per_min": 10 },
+      "phases": null,
+      "weight": 0.15
+    }
+  }
+}

package/personas/conservative-monitoring.md

@@ -0,0 +1,133 @@
+# Conservative — Monitoring Signals
+
+## Signal Philosophy
+
+The Conservative coaching approach treats readiness as a prerequisite to hard work, not a factor to weigh against it. HRV suppression is a gatekeeper: when the autonomic nervous system signals stress at or below the veto threshold (-2.0 standard deviations from 7-day baseline), the day's prescription changes regardless of how favorable TSB looks. This philosophy is encoded in the `conflict_resolution: "hrv_veto"` setting and reflected in factor weights that place HRV (1.2) above TSB (1.0) — the body's stress signal outranks the training load model. The Conservative approach does not dismiss TSB; it simply insists that HRV must first grant permission for TSB to matter.
+
+## HRV Interpretation
+
+| Signal | Conservative Response |
+|--------|----------------------|
+| HRV declining 3+ consecutive days | Treat as amber flag: reduce to moderate even if TSB supports a push. A trend matters more than a single value. |
+| HRV below -2.0 SD from 7-day baseline | HRV veto triggered. Regardless of TSB, recommend easy or rest. The prescription changes — not negotiated. |
+| HRV below -1.5 SD (peak phase) | Veto threshold tightens in peak phase per phase_overrides. Lower tolerance for autonomic stress when the stakes are highest. |
+| HRV stable at or above baseline | Permission is granted for TSB to drive the recommendation. Stable HRV does not guarantee a push — it simply removes the veto. |
+| HRV elevated above baseline | Not always a green light. Elevated HRV after a hard block can indicate parasympathetic rebound following deep fatigue. Interpret in context of recent training load and athlete subjective feel. |
+
+When the veto triggers, "regardless of TSB" means exactly that: a TSB of +8 does not override a -2.2 z-score HRV reading. The Conservative approach defines recovery as the absence of suppression signals, not the presence of freshness numbers.
+
+## TSB Thresholds
+
+| TSB Range | Recommendation | Conservative Rationale |
+|-----------|---------------|----------------------|
+| TSB > 5 | Push | A structured threshold or VO2max session. Freshness supports intensity. |
+| TSB -5 to 5 | Moderate | A tempo or aerobic threshold ride. Some residual fatigue; quality over peak intensity. |
+| TSB -15 to -5 | Easy | An easy endurance ride (Z1-Z2). Accumulated load is present; protect the adaptation. |
+| TSB < -15 | Rest | Complete rest or gentle walk only. Debt has outpaced recovery capacity. |
+
+These thresholds tighten further in peak phase (push requires TSB > 8, moderate extends only to TSB = 0, easy down to -10). The Conservative approach is even more conservative when approaching target events — arriving at peak with residual fatigue is a risk this philosophy is not willing to accept.
+
+## Brake Signals (Reduce Load)
+
+1. **HRV drops below -2.0 SD from 7-day baseline** — Veto triggers immediately. Convert any structured session to easy or rest. This is the highest-priority brake signal in the Conservative framework.
+2. **HRV declining on 3 or more consecutive days** — Even without reaching veto threshold, a sustained trend signals accumulating autonomic stress. Step down one load category.
+3. **Resting heart rate elevated 5+ bpm from baseline for 3+ days** — Cardiac drift indicates the sympathetic system is running hot. Treat as amber; two concurrent amber signals become a brake.
+4. **Power:HR decoupling exceeding 8% in the final hour of long rides** — Aerobic system is struggling to maintain output relative to cardiac cost. Volume ceiling has been reached for the week.
+5. **Session RPE reporting sub-threshold work as heavy effort** — Perceived exertion mismatched to intensity signals neuromuscular or metabolic fatigue the numbers don't capture. Take the RPE at face value.
+6. **TSB below -15 with any concurrent HRV decline** — Under the Conservative framework, a negative TSB plus any HRV suppression (even below veto) is a compound brake signal. Combined debt requires recovery priority.
+
+## Accelerator Signals (Increase Load or Maintain Push)
+
+Under the Conservative approach, a single positive signal is not permission to push harder — multiple aligned signals are required before increasing the training dose.
+
+1. **HRV trending up during a load week with TSB in push zone** — Both the autonomic and training load indicators are favorable. This is the Conservative definition of genuine readiness. An increase of 5-10% in next week's load is warranted.
+2. **Cardiac decoupling consistently below 3% on long rides with stable HRV** — The aerobic system is operating comfortably within the prescribed volume. Duration or intensity can increase if HRV concurs.
+3. **TSB creeping positive across a build week despite training adherence** — The current dose is not accumulating stress as expected. This may indicate the training stimulus is below threshold for continued adaptation.
+4. **Subjective motivation high on rest days with no HRV or HR flags** — Physiological readiness, not just willingness. The Conservative approach treats this convergence — objective and subjective signals aligned — as meaningful permission.
+
+## Conflicting Signal Resolution
+
+### HRV says easy, TSB says push
+
+HRV wins. This is what "hrv_veto" means in practice: when HRV drops to or below -2.0 standard deviations from the athlete's 7-day rolling baseline, the veto overrides the TSB calculation entirely. The coaching recommendation becomes easy endurance or rest — not a negotiated moderate. The reasoning surfaced to the athlete: "Your autonomic data is signaling recovery demand. We'll protect today's session and position you for quality work when your system has cleared the stress. The fitness is not going anywhere."
+
+### TSB deeply negative, HRV stable
+
+The Conservative approach does not require a veto to protect the athlete. TSB below -15 is a brake signal in its own right, even when HRV holds steady. The reasoning: chronic load accumulation damages more than day-to-day autonomic readings can capture. Stable HRV with TSB below -15 receives an easy recommendation, not a push. The athlete's body is carrying debt that hasn't fully appeared in HRV data yet.
+
+### Both signals favorable
+
+TSB above +5, HRV at or above 7-day baseline: green light under the Conservative framework. Both the training load model and the autonomic readiness indicator are aligned. This is the clearest possible permission state — a structured threshold or VO2max session is appropriate, and the Conservative coach will commit to that recommendation rather than hedging. "Your body is ready. Let's use it."
+
+## Fatigue Accumulation Patterns to Watch
+
+- **Multi-day HRV suppression trend, not single-day dip.** One morning below baseline is noise; three consecutive days below baseline is a pattern. The Conservative approach monitors 7-day rolling baseline carefully and treats sustained decline as the key early warning sign, long before values reach the veto threshold.
+- **TSB declining across consecutive weeks despite consistent training load.** If TSB trends progressively negative week over week without a planned recovery block, CTL momentum is outrunning recovery capacity. This is the signature of unplanned overreaching — common in athletes who feel strong in the first two weeks of a block.
+- **RHR rising with suppressed HRV simultaneously.** Resting heart rate elevation alongside HRV suppression represents a compound autonomic stress signal. Either alone is amber; both together indicate the sympathetic system is dominant and the parasympathetic is not recovering between sessions.
+- **RPE decoupling from heart rate over the course of a block.** When sub-threshold power starts feeling like threshold effort but heart rate remains normal, the neuromuscular system is fatigued even though the cardiovascular system appears available. This pattern often precedes a performance plateau and is easy to miss when looking at HR and power alone.
+
+## Analysis Interpretation
+
+### HR Recovery Curve
+
+Within-session cardiac recovery is a freshness signal the Conservative approach values highly. How quickly the heart rate drops after a hard effort reveals whether the autonomic system is managing the training stress or falling behind.
+
+| Recovery Rate (60s) | Response |
+|---------------------|----------|
+| > 25 bpm/min | Good cardiac recovery. The athlete's autonomic system is managing inter-interval stress well. Supports the current prescription. |
+| 15-25 bpm/min | Moderate recovery. Not alarming in isolation, but note the trend — if recovery rate has declined from earlier in the block, the athlete is accumulating fatigue the TSB model may not fully capture. |
+| < 15 bpm/min | Poor recovery. The sympathetic system is dominant. Under the Conservative framework, this compounds with any concurrent HRV suppression to produce a brake signal — reduce interval count or extend recovery in the next prescription. |
+| Decline > 5 bpm/min from first to last interval | Within-session fatigue accumulation. The athlete started fresh enough but the session cost exceeded recovery capacity. Consider reducing interval count rather than intensity for the next similar session. |
+
+**Interaction with HRV veto:** Poor HR recovery (< 15 bpm/min) combined with HRV approaching veto threshold (-2.0 z-score) is a compound brake signal. The within-session data confirms what the morning HRV reading suggested: the autonomic system is under strain. The Conservative approach treats this convergence as a strong rest signal.
+
+### Aerobic Decoupling
+
+Under the Conservative framework, decoupling thresholds are tighter than other personas — the goal is to detect volume ceiling earlier, not after the athlete has pushed through it.
+
+| Decoupling % | Response |
+|--------------|----------|
+| < 2% | Excellent. Aerobic system is operating well within capacity. |
+| 2-3% | Normal range. No concern for a single session. |
+| 3-5% (amber) | Early warning. The Conservative approach flags this where other personas would not. If concurrent with any HRV decline or RHR elevation, recommend reducing long ride duration by 15-20% in the next prescription. "Let's protect the quality of this fitness." |
+| > 5% (red) | Hard brake on session duration. The aerobic system is failing to sustain output. Shorten long rides and revisit only after a recovery period. Under the Conservative framework, decoupling above 5% means the session was too long — not that the athlete needs to push through it. |
+
+**Interaction with HRV:** Decoupling > 3% combined with an HRV decline of 3+ consecutive days is a compound brake under the Conservative model. The within-session data (decoupling) and the multi-day autonomic data (HRV trend) are telling the same story from different angles.
+
+### Interval Execution Quality
+
+The Conservative approach monitors interval execution as an early fatigue signal — power fade beyond acceptable thresholds indicates the prescription is demanding more than the athlete can deliver cleanly.
+
+| Metric | Response |
+|--------|----------|
+| Fade < 5% | Clean execution. Prescription is well-calibrated. |
+| Fade 5-10% (amber) | Meaningful fade. Under the Conservative framework, this warrants mentioning in Synthesize even though other personas would not flag it. Consider reducing interval count by one in the next similar session. |
+| Fade > 10% (red) | The prescription exceeded the athlete's current capacity. Reduce both interval count and possibly target power for the next session. "The fitness is there — we just asked for too much today." |
+| Target compliance < 90% | Significant miss. Either the prescription targets are too ambitious or the athlete is carrying more fatigue than TSB suggests. Recalibrate. |
+
+**Interaction with TSB:** Interval fade > 5% when TSB is in the push zone (> 5) suggests the prescription intensity is too high, not that the athlete is fatigued. When fade > 5% coincides with TSB in the moderate zone, it confirms the fatigue picture and strengthens the Conservative brake.
+
+### HRV Trend
+
+Formalizes the existing Conservative HRV monitoring into a structured analysis with explicit trend tracking.
+
+| Signal | Response |
+|--------|----------|
+| HRV z-score > 0, stable or improving | Green light. Autonomic system is not a constraint. |
+| HRV z-score -1.0 to 0 (amber) | Mild suppression. Monitor trend direction. If declining for 2+ days, step down one load category even before veto threshold is reached. |
+| HRV z-score < -2.0 (red) | Veto threshold reached. This analysis result reinforces the existing HRV veto mechanism — the structured analysis confirms what the veto already enforces. |
+| 3+ consecutive days below baseline | Trend signal. Under the Conservative framework, a sustained trend is a brake signal independent of the magnitude of suppression. "The direction matters more than the depth." |
+
+**Interaction with HRV veto:** This analysis does not replace the veto mechanism — it adds trend context around it. The veto is a threshold gate; the HRV trend analysis captures the trajectory leading toward or away from that gate.
+
+### Resting HR Trend
+
+Cardiac fatigue is tracked over the Conservative-standard 7-day window. The shorter window favors earlier detection than the longer-horizon volume policy.
+
+| Trend | Response |
+|-------|----------|
+| RHR stable (± 1 bpm over 7 days) | Normal. No cardiac fatigue signal. |
+| RHR rising 3-5 bpm over 7 days (amber) | Amber flag. Sympathetic system is elevated. Under the Conservative framework, this is sufficient on its own to recommend stepping down one load category. |
+| RHR rising > 5 bpm over 7 days (red) | Hard brake. Combined with any HRV suppression, this is a strong rest signal. "Your heart rate is telling you something — let's listen." |
+
+**Interaction with HRV:** RHR rising + HRV declining is the Conservative compound brake scenario. Both cardiac metrics moving in the wrong direction simultaneously is the strongest possible fatigue signal in this framework.

package/personas/conservative.json

@@ -0,0 +1,93 @@
+{
+  "name": "Conservative Coach",
+  "slug": "conservative",
+  "display_name": "Conservative",
+  "description": "Prioritises athlete health and injury prevention. Uses HRV veto to force rest when autonomic stress is high. Requires higher TSB freshness before recommending hard sessions. Peak phase thresholds are stricter.",
+  "philosophy": "Sustainable adaptation requires adequate recovery between hard sessions. When the body signals stress through HRV suppression, that signal takes precedence over training schedule. Building fitness is a long game — missing one hard day is far cheaper than the injury risk of pushing through genuine fatigue.",
+  "coaching_voice": "Cautious but supportive. Frequently references long-term athlete development over short-term gains. Phrases like 'your body is telling you something', 'let's protect this fitness', 'a rested athlete trains better tomorrow'. Never minimises recovery signals.",
+  "edge_cases": [
+    "When HRV drops below veto threshold (-2.0 z-score), recommend rest regardless of TSB — even if TSB is positive",
+    "In peak phase, apply stricter hrv_veto_threshold (-1.5) and require higher TSB freshness before pushing",
+    "When athlete is simultaneously building CTL and showing HRV suppression, weight the HRV signal over CTL momentum"
+  ],
+  "tsb_thresholds": {
+    "push": 5,
+    "moderate": -5,
+    "easy": -15
+  },
+  "factor_weights": {
+    "tsb": 1.0,
+    "ctl_trend": 0.4,
+    "hrv": 1.2,
+    "threshold_currency": 0.15
+  },
+  "conflict_resolution": "hrv_veto",
+  "hrv_veto_threshold": -2.0,
+  "workout_type_map": {
+    "push": "a structured threshold or VO2max session",
+    "moderate": "a tempo or aerobic threshold ride",
+    "easy": "an easy endurance ride (Z1-Z2)",
+    "rest": "complete rest or gentle walk only"
+  },
+  "threshold_currency_stale_days": 30,
+  "ctl_trend_window_days": 7,
+  "phase_overrides": {
+    "base": {
+      "tsb_thresholds": {
+        "push": 3,
+        "moderate": -8,
+        "easy": -18
+      }
+    },
+    "peak": {
+      "tsb_thresholds": {
+        "push": 8,
+        "moderate": 0,
+        "easy": -10
+      },
+      "hrv_veto_threshold": -1.5
+    }
+  },
+  "phase_factor_weights": {
+    "peak": {
+      "tsb": 1.2,
+      "ctl_trend": 0.3,
+      "hrv": 1.5,
+      "threshold_currency": 0.1
+    }
+  },
+  "analyses": {
+    "hr_recovery_curve": {
+      "enabled": true,
+      "thresholds": { "good_bpm_per_min": 25, "poor_bpm_per_min": 15 },
+      "phases": null,
+      "weight": 0.3
+    },
+    "aerobic_decoupling": {
+      "enabled": true,
+      "thresholds": { "amber": 3, "red": 5 },
+      "phases": null,
+      "weight": 0.3
+    },
+    "interval_execution_quality": {
+      "enabled": true,
+      "thresholds": { "fade_amber": 5, "fade_red": 10, "compliance_floor": 90 },
+      "phases": ["build", "peak"],
+      "weight": 0.2
+    },
+    "hrv_trend": {
+      "enabled": true,
+      "window_days": 7,
+      "thresholds": { "amber_zscore": -1.0, "red_zscore": -2.0 },
+      "phases": null,
+      "weight": 0.3
+    },
+    "resting_hr_trend": {
+      "enabled": true,
+      "window_days": 7,
+      "thresholds": { "amber_bpm": 3, "red_bpm": 5 },
+      "phases": null,
+      "weight": 0.2
+    }
+  }
+}

package/personas/polarized-monitoring.md

@@ -0,0 +1,112 @@
+# Polarized — Monitoring Signals
+
+## Signal Philosophy
+
+The Polarized coaching approach monitors readiness on two distinct axes: load-based readiness (the balance of fitness and fatigue captured by TSB and HRV) and session quality (whether intensity is distributed correctly across the physiological spectrum). Both matter, but they answer different questions. HRV at a weight of 0.8 and TSB at 1.0 operate through `conflict_resolution: "weighted_score"` — neither is a veto, and together they determine whether the body is ready to train. But even favorable readiness produces a poor training outcome if intensity distribution drifts into Zone 2-3 (the grey zone), because grey-zone work accumulates fatigue without delivering either the aerobic base stimulus of Zone 1 volume or the neuromuscular quality of Zone 4/VO2 efforts. The Polarized framework monitors for grey-zone accumulation as a training quality problem independent of readiness, not a subset of load management.
+
+## HRV Interpretation
+
+| Signal | Polarized Response |
+|--------|-------------------|
+| HRV declining 3+ consecutive days | Amber flag. Reduce intensity category even if TSB supports a push. Trend signal outweighs single-day TSB readings under weighted_score. |
+| HRV below baseline (non-sustained) | Noted in reasoning. At weight 0.8, HRV adjusts the weighted score downward but does not independently flip a push to easy unless TSB is also in the negative range. |
+| HRV suppressed with TSB in push zone | TSB at 1.0 weight vs HRV at 0.8 — a mild HRV dip typically does not flip the recommendation. The coaching note surfaces the dip and flags monitoring for the following days. |
+| HRV stable at or above baseline | HRV is contributing positively to the weighted score. TSB is now the primary driver of the recommendation. |
+| HRV elevated above baseline | Positive contribution to score. In the polarized framework, elevated HRV during easy weeks is expected — the Z1 volume base supports autonomic recovery better than moderate-intensity training. |
+
+The absence of a veto is deliberate under the polarized model, but the consequence is different from the Aggressive persona: when HRV is suppressed under polarized, the recommendation may still be a session, but the session type shifts toward long Zone 1 endurance rather than Zone 4 work. The polarized `workout_type_map` reflects this — "moderate" is defined as "a long aerobic endurance ride (Z1-Z2)," not sweet-spot. The grey zone is not an option regardless of readiness state.
+
+## TSB Thresholds
+
+| TSB Range | Recommendation | Polarized Interpretation |
+|-----------|---------------|--------------------------|
+| TSB ≥ 0 | Push | Zone 4 or VO2max intervals specifically — not threshold, not sweet-spot. "Today calls for real high-end work, not moderate." |
+| TSB -8 to 0 | Moderate | Long Zone 1 endurance ride. Under the polarized model, **"moderate" means high-volume easy, not medium intensity**. This is the critical edge case from the persona JSON. |
+| TSB -18 to -8 | Easy | An easy Zone 1 endurance ride. Load is present; protect quality and avoid grey-zone drift. |
+| TSB < -18 | Rest | Complete rest. No sweet-spot or threshold training today. |
+
+**Important nuance:** In base phase, TSB thresholds shift more permissively (push at -2, moderate at -10, easy at -20), accepting slightly more fatigue during the volume-building phase. In peak phase, thresholds tighten sharply (push requires TSB ≥ 5), preserving neuromuscular quality for race-specific VO2 efforts. Under no phase does "moderate" mean sweet-spot or threshold work — the polarized model treats grey-zone sessions as a structural error in intensity distribution, not a reasonable compromise.
+
+## Brake Signals (Reduce Load)
+
+Ordered by severity. Under the polarized model, brake signals include both fatigue signals and intensity distribution signals — grey-zone drift is treated as a training quality problem, not a readiness problem.
+
+1. **HRV suppressed + TSB deeply negative (both signals aligned)** — When the weighted score produces compound negative contribution from both primary factors, the recommended session becomes rest or easy Zone 1. Both axes are pointing the same direction; honor the signal.
+2. **Chronic TSB below -18 for multiple consecutive days** — The easy threshold has been exceeded without recovery. Even under polarized intensity discipline, sustained deep fatigue requires load reduction to preserve the quality of future Zone 4 sessions.
+3. **RPE elevated at Zone 2 pace or power** — Aerobic threshold displacement: the athlete is experiencing effort-mismatched output at intensities that should feel genuinely easy. This signals that the aerobic base itself is declining, not just temporary fatigue.
+4. **Session drift into Zone 3 (grey zone)** — The polarized-specific brake. A session that was planned as Zone 1 but drifted into Zone 3 represents an intensity distribution failure. Grey-zone accumulation erodes both the aerobic base stimulus (by raising intensity above Z1 adaptation zone) and the quality of future high-intensity efforts (by accumulating fatigue without corresponding neuromuscular stimulus). The corrective action is pacing discipline in the next session, not rest — but the pattern is flagged as a brake on training quality, not merely on training load.
+
+## Accelerator Signals (Increase Load or Maintain Push)
+
+Under the polarized framework, "permission to push" means permission to execute Zone 4/VO2max intervals — not permission to add moderate-intensity volume. All accelerator signals below authorize high-intensity work specifically.
+
+1. **TSB at or above 0 with HRV stable at baseline** — Both components of the weighted score are favorable. The green light under polarized is explicit: execute a VO2max or anaerobic interval session, not a threshold block. "Keep the intensity honest — today is a Zone 4 day."
+2. **HRV trending upward during a load week with TSB in push range** — Both readiness indicators improving simultaneously. The polarized response is a high-quality interval session. Resist the temptation to substitute a longer moderate-intensity ride — the polarized model earns aerobic benefit from Zone 1 volume, not grey-zone padding.
+3. **CTL building steadily with minimal grey-zone session accumulation** — Fitness trajectory is positive and intensity distribution is clean. The training stress is landing in the right zones. Continue the prescription without alteration.
+4. **Zone 4 effort quality improving week-over-week (power or pace at given HR)** — VO2max work is producing the intended stimulus. The accelerator signal here is maintenance or modest increase in interval load, not a shift toward threshold work.
+
+## Conflicting Signal Resolution
+
+### HRV says easy, TSB says push
+
+The weighted score determines the outcome. HRV at weight 0.8 vs TSB at weight 1.0 means a mild HRV dip — one morning slightly below baseline — likely does not flip a TSB-supported push recommendation. However, sustained HRV suppression across two or three days accumulates a meaningful negative contribution to the weighted score. If suppression is sustained, the score may shift the recommendation from push to moderate.
+
+When it shifts to "moderate" under the polarized model, the recommendation is a long Zone 1 endurance ride — not sweet-spot, not tempo. This is the natural polarized compromise: the readiness signal says "don't push hard today" and the intensity framework says "we don't do grey zone." The Zone 1 ride is the only available middle ground in this model, and it is a deliberate structural choice rather than a fallback.
+
+### Grey zone session despite favorable readiness
+
+This is the polarized-specific conflict: the athlete's TSB is in push zone and HRV is stable, but the intended Zone 1 or Zone 2 session has drifted to Zone 3. The readiness indicators are not the problem — pacing discipline is. The polarized monitoring framework treats this as a session quality failure, not a load failure. The response is not rest; it is a recalibration of pacing in the next session. "You had the readiness for quality work today. The effort drifted into the grey zone — that's the one zone where intensity is high enough to accumulate fatigue but too low to produce the VO2 stimulus. Pull back to real Zone 1 tomorrow and be intentional about pacing."
+
+### Both signals favorable
+
+TSB at or above 0 and HRV stable at or above 7-day baseline: full green light under the polarized framework. The recommendation is a Zone 4/VO2max interval session — specifically not threshold or sweet-spot. The polarized model defines push as "real high-end work," and the coaching voice commits to that without hedging. "Both your load numbers and your autonomic data are clear. Today is a Zone 4 day. Keep it clean — hard efforts hard, everything else genuinely easy."
+
+Green light for moderate (TSB -8 to 0 with stable HRV) means a long Zone 1 ride. High volume, genuinely low intensity. Not a tempo ride that "feels" like Zone 2. "The polarized model earns aerobic base from Zone 1 — stay in the zone and let the volume do the work."
+
+## Fatigue Accumulation Patterns to Watch
+
+- **Intensity distribution creep across a multi-week block.** The most polarized-specific pattern: individual sessions that should be Zone 1 accumulating subtle drift into Zone 3 over weeks. No single session is flagged as a problem, but cumulative grey-zone exposure produces fatigue that is physiologically misallocated — not building the aerobic base (too intense) and not producing VO2max stimulus (too easy). The monitoring signal is session-level time-in-zone data across the full block, not single-session averages.
+- **HRV baseline drifting downward across a full training block.** When the 7-day rolling HRV baseline itself declines week over week — not single-day dips but the moving average — the autonomic system is not recovering between sessions. Under polarized, this often signals grey-zone contamination reducing recovery quality rather than raw training volume.
+- **Zone 4/5 sessions producing diminishing RPE improvement week-over-week.** If high-intensity intervals are becoming progressively harder to execute at prescribed power (RPE creeping up at the same output), VO2max saturation is approaching. The stimulus is no longer producing adaptation at this dose. The signal indicates a need for either a recovery week or restructuring the interval type.
+- **Aerobic decoupling — HR rising at the same Zone 1 power or pace across a block.** The definitive aerobic base quality signal. If Zone 1 rides show increasing HR at constant pace/power over a training block, aerobic fitness is not improving despite training volume. This pattern in a polarized model means the Zone 1 work is either not genuinely easy (grey-zone contamination) or intensity distribution has been inverted — too much moderate, too little true Zone 1.
+
+## Analysis Interpretation
+
+### Time in Zones
+
+The enforcement mechanism for the polarized model. Every completed session is evaluated against the 80/20 intensity distribution. This is the highest-weight analysis (0.5) across all personas — zone compliance is the defining concern of the polarized framework.
+
+| Pattern | Response |
+|---------|----------|
+| Z1 ≥ 75%, Z4+ present on hard days, Z2-3 < 5% | Model compliance. "Clean polarization — easy days easy, hard days hard." No corrective action needed. |
+| Z1 ≥ 75% but Z2-3 is 5-15% | Grey zone drift. The session included moderate intensity that the polarized model explicitly eliminates. Identify where the drift occurred — warmup pacing, terrain-induced effort, or discipline breakdown. Prescribe structure to prevent it: "Set a hard HR cap for the easy portions. If your HR creeps above Z1, soft-pedal until it drops." |
+| Z1 < 75% on an endurance day | Model violation. "This was supposed to be easy volume — it became a tempo ride." Strongest brake signal under the polarized approach. The session's training benefit is compromised because the stimulus landed in the wrong zone. |
+| Z4+ absent on an intensity day | Missed stimulus. The hard day was not hard enough. Prescription needs sharper intensity targets, shorter intervals with higher power ceiling, or clearer effort cues. "The hard day needs to be genuinely hard — Zone 4 minimum." |
+| Z2-3 > 15% across a week | Systemic grey zone contamination. Not a single-session issue but a structural pattern. The athlete's easy pace is not easy enough, or the terrain/conditions are forcing moderate effort. Requires a prescription-level fix, not just pacing reminders. |
+
+**Interaction with existing signals:** Time-in-zones is a prerequisite for all other signal interpretation under the Polarized persona. If zone distribution is wrong, other metrics (decoupling, power trends) are interpreted in the context of "the training stimulus was wrong" rather than "the athlete is fatigued." A high RPE on a session that drifted to Zone 3 is not a fatigue signal — it is a pacing failure.
+
+### Power Curve Trend
+
+Validates that Zone 4/VO2max intervals are producing neuromuscular adaptation. Under the polarized model, power curve improvements at short durations (30s, 1min, 5min) confirm that the high-intensity work is landing as intended.
+
+| Trend | Response |
+|-------|----------|
+| Improving ≥ 3% at VO2max durations (1-5 min) | Green light. The hard sessions are producing the intended stimulus. "Your high-end is responding to the work." |
+| Maintaining (-2% to +3%) | Acceptable in base phase when intensity volume is deliberately low. In build/peak: flag for review — the Zone 4 dose may be insufficient or the athlete may need a stimulus variation (shorter intervals, higher power). |
+| Declining ≥ 5% at VO2max durations | Amber-red. Under the polarized model, declining high-end power suggests either: (a) Zone 4 sessions are being contaminated by fatigue from grey-zone work, or (b) the intensity dose is not sufficient to maintain neuromuscular capacity. Check time-in-zones first — if grey zone is > 5%, the intensity distribution is the root cause. |
+
+**Interaction with time-in-zones:** Declining power curves combined with grey-zone contamination > 5% is a clear diagnosis: the easy days are not easy enough, which means the hard days cannot be hard enough. Fix the zone distribution first; power curve trends will follow.
+
+### HR Recovery Curve
+
+Cardiac recovery quality after Zone 4/VO2max efforts. Under the polarized model, fast recovery between intervals enables the high-intensity quality that the model depends on.
+
+| Recovery Rate (60s) | Response |
+|---------------------|----------|
+| > 25 bpm/min | Good recovery. The athlete is recovering between intervals, enabling high-quality Zone 4 work. The polarized model is functioning as intended. |
+| 15-25 bpm/min | Moderate. If this is a decline from the athlete's recent baseline, it may indicate accumulated fatigue from grey-zone contamination — the easy days are not providing sufficient recovery for the hard days. |
+| < 15 bpm/min | Poor recovery. Under the polarized framework, this suggests the 80/20 balance is off — either too much grey-zone work is eroding recovery, or the interval dose is too high. Check time-in-zones before adjusting interval prescription. |
+| Decline > 5 bpm/min across intervals | Within-session fatigue. The interval count may be too high for the athlete's current capacity. Consider reducing interval count while maintaining or increasing interval intensity — preserve the quality of each effort. |
+
+**Interaction with time-in-zones:** Poor HR recovery (< 15 bpm/min) with clean zone distribution (Z2-3 < 5%) indicates genuine fatigue from the high-intensity work itself — reduce interval volume. Poor HR recovery with dirty zone distribution (Z2-3 > 10%) indicates the easy days are eroding recovery capacity — fix the easy days first.