Ugly-row forensics

Every after-action has one fight people will not shut up about. The useful move is not to reopen that report in the game and brood. It is to know whether the number is stake (a huge march that was always going to move the scoreboard), a bad trade, a missing layer or missing rein, or a recipe into the wrong wall.

By hand you need that report’s full layers and the fights around it (same keep, same type) so you know if it was a one-off. That is two jobs. People do the first and skip the second.

Focus

Get to a slice that contains the row (the keep, the player’s rallies of that type, “attacks that went negative”). Then point at the row: the worst exchange, the breach, the rally everyone remembers.

Why this used to die as a daydream

A single opening screenshot cannot tell stake from trade. A single full report still cannot tell you it was the third identical recipe into a wall that had already healed.

Questions (any wording)

This row

This row in its series

After you know

What a good answer looks like

A named measure (points given up, Effectiveness, exchange). Stake vs bad trade vs missing piece called as a reading, not as another total. Neighbors in time if you asked for the series. No character study of the setter. Numbers, and the reading.

Common miss

Starting forensic work on the whole battlefield (“why did we play bad”). Name the row or the cut of ugly rows first. Pair with one keep when the row is part of a tear-down.