Grade the gain over the baseline, not the athleticism handed you.
The physical-development gain, the portability test, and the credit split from talent and frame.
The physical-development gain.
The performance staff is a rate-lifter on the physical traits: added strength and power, added velocity, and the durability base, credited where players gained beyond their projected physical curve under this staff. The gain is read against the frame-typing prior, so a reversible-skinny young player who was projected to add mass anyway earns the staff credit only for the gain over that expectation.
The player added 27 pounds and 2.8 mph, but his frame was projected to add 18 and 1.0 on its own, so the staff residual is 9 pounds and 1.8 mph, the gain over the curve. The engine credits the residual, not the maturation that was always coming. The gain over the projected physical curve is the credit; the maturation that was coming anyway is not.
Illustrative engine read on the real physical-development gain (added strength, velocity, and durability credited over the projected physical curve, with the frame-typing prior applied). Composite staff and player, demonstration figures.
The portability test.
The staff is run through the portability test: does the physical-development gain follow the actor across organizations, or did it live in one gifted, young roster. A real performance fingerprint shows up in more than one building, and the read carries its confidence, gated on the sample of players and years.
The residual traveled from one organization to the next at plus 1.6 and plus 1.9 mph, which is what a real strength-development edge does. The confidence is held at 59% because the sample of players and years is modest, and the read says so out loud. A real performance edge shows up in the next building; a borrowed one evaporates.
Illustrative engine read on the real portability test for the performance staff (the physical residual traveling across organizations, the confidence sample-gated on players and years). Composite staff, demonstration figures.
Separating the staff from the talent and the frame.
The credit is split between the performance staff, the player, and the org's broader machine, and separated from the frame upside the roster brought in the door. A staff handed a wave of high-frame-upside prospects will post gains that were partly baked in, so the residual removes the baked-in maturation and reports what the staff actually added.
The staff posted a +3.4 KR gross gain, but +2.0 of it was frame maturation the prospects were going to produce anyway, so the net residual is +1.4, and the credit split gives the staff 40% with the frame and player carrying the rest. The read is honest about the talent that walked in the door. A high-frame roster posts gains that were partly baked in, and the residual reports only what the staff added.
Illustrative engine read on the real credit split and frame-upside separation (gross gain minus baked-in maturation equals net staff residual, split between staff, player, and machine). Composite staff, demonstration figures.
The engine removes the maturation that was coming anyway and credits only what travels.
Isolate the residual. Test whether it travels.
Performance grades the strength and conditioning staff on the gain over the projected physical curve, removes the frame maturation that was coming regardless, splits the credit, and runs the portability test, with the confidence gated on the sample of players and years.