Product and workflows
Analytics and feedback
Use recorded participation and explicit feedback without inventing outcomes or rankings.
What reports can help an institution see
Rafik’s reports describe authorised records: participation, delivered training events, recorded assessment history, workload and explicitly submitted feedback. Institution administrators and coaches receive different scopes. A coach’s reports relate to their current responsibility; some workload summaries remain institution-wide according to the report definition.
The practical benefit is a place to review operational questions with the relevant period and source records. For example, staff can investigate pending event outcomes or examine how much completed activity has actually been recorded. This does not establish staff quality, athletic improvement, revenue, retention or causal impact.
Start with a question and a definition
Before comparing numbers, decide what you are asking:
| Question | Relevant record | Avoid this unsupported conclusion |
|---|---|---|
| Which scheduled events have a recorded outcome? | Calendar state, completion and attendance. | Every missing outcome was a missed session. |
| What did an athlete actually record? | Completed training and permitted history. | A missing entry proves they did not train. |
| Can two assessment results be compared? | Same test definition, revision, result type and unit. | A similarly named test measures the same thing. |
| How much activity was attributed to staff? | Defined completed events and participant counts. | Delivery count ranks coach quality or effort. |
| Who chose to give feedback? | Eligible response count and missing-response coverage. | Nonrespondents were satisfied or dissatisfied. |
Set the date range and the available athlete filters. Check definitions, timezone and whether a total represents the filtered subject or the wider institution. A bounded page of rows is not necessarily the full report denominator.
Participation and delivery
Use attendance and completed events to review recorded activity. Where events have co-leading staff, the current reporting definition credits each listed staff member; their totals should not be summed as though each represented a different event.
Investigate anomalies in the source record before acting on them. Attendance and results can be corrected, so a refreshed total can change for a legitimate reason. Reports are operational views over the current records, not frozen evidence of what a previous screen once showed.
Athlete session feedback
Eligible completed workouts and attended, completed training appointments have separate optional feedback sources. An athlete may submit a rating through the supported completion/feedback workflow. No answer should be preselected, and unanswered items remain unknown.
Keep the source types and response coverage visible. A small number of submitted ratings describes those responses; it is not a representative satisfaction survey or proof of a training benefit. Do not replace an absent response with a neutral score.
Coach workplace feedback
Coaches have a separate optional monthly workplace rating. This is not the same question as an athlete’s session experience. Administrators review the authorised workplace distribution separately from athlete/date filters. Explain the visible audience and reporting scope before inviting a response; do not describe it as anonymous without a reviewed policy and implementation basis.
A responsible review routine
- Choose a specific question and an agreed date range.
- Read the report definition, units and coverage.
- Open the relevant authorised source records to understand gaps or corrections.
- Discuss operational follow-up with the responsible staff; use an explicit task if action is needed.
- Keep personal and sensitive details out of exported public summaries and support requests.
Use assessment guidance for measurement limits and roles for access. Real-user evaluation and institutional privacy/security review remain prerequisites to introducing real athlete data.
Source and scope
Based on the current institution-scoped API reference reviewed on 17 October 2026. Review the source contracts and institutional policies before using real records.