Reaction · Decision · Endurance · Balance — today's profile against the assessment baseline
Baseline assessment no prior comparison
Athlete 001
Shooting Guard · Age 34
Athlete 001 (today)
Session Vitals · todaySlowest reactions in the unit · loses time under pressure · fades by full-time
At tip-off
Overall Readiness
65%
Low
Peak
vs Pressure
Under pressure
Pressure Cost
+150ms
0
+200ms
over the session
By session end
Late-Session Drop
−40%
Stable
Severe
Bottom Line
Clean-cue reactions and impulse control are intact, but decision accuracy collapses sharply under competing-cue conflict — condition-specific breakdown is the defining constraint.
01 — Timing & Movement
Reaction speed & symmetry
How fast and how evenly the body responds when fresh · the foundation layer
Foundation
Timing & Movement
SG · All trials
Reaction Consistency
How tightly do reaction times cluster around the average?
279ms · Best
333ms · Peak
437ms · Slow
279ms333ms (mean)437ms
Best
279ms
Average / Peak
333ms
Slowest
437ms
SG · Bilateral · over the session
Reaction Asymmetry
How do left and right reaction speeds diverge as the session progresses?
380ms350ms320ms290ms
Left sideRight side
T1T2T3T4
Left: 313→297msRight: 360→319ms (dominant)Gap at T4: 22ms
Mean L 322ms · Mean R 343ms · True gap 21ms (persistent after trial review)
02 — Decisions Under Pressure
Decision Performance
Speed, accuracy and the stability profile when cues compete · the primary performance constraint today
Constraint
Decisions Under Pressure
SG · Profile
Decision Performance Profile
Where does today land on the speed × accuracy plane?
100%10%
300ms700ms
Fast and Accurate
Slow and Accurate
Fast and Inaccurate
Slow and Inaccurate
SG · Reads
Decision Speed
How fast does the choice land in clean vs conflict conditions?
Clear (congruent)476 ms
Conflict (incongruent)534 ms
+58 ms pressure cost
SG · Reads
Decision Accuracy
When cues conflict, does decision accuracy survive?
Clear (congruent)73%
Conflict (incongruent)31%
−42pp accuracy collapse
03 — Neural Fatigue
How the session ages
Stability across the session, bilateral capacity pattern, and total session drop-off
Endurance
Late-session integrity
SG · Over the session
Late-Session Stability
How does neural control hold across the full session?
1007550
T1T2T3T4
SG · Bilateral
Bilateral Capacity Pattern
How do left and right-side capacities compare across the session?
Minimal
StartT1–T2
89
L
78
R
11 pt gap · right slower
LateT3–T4
94
L
87
R
Both improve · 7 pt gap
SG · Total
Session Drop-Off
How much neural capacity is retained across the full session?
98%
Capacity remaining
04 — Neural Training Brief
Primary Unlock Levers
Today's two priority constraints, mapped to the protocols that move them
01
Finding
Decision Control Collapse Under Conflict
+58ms pressure cost · 42pp accuracy collapse (73%→31%) · conflict-condition breakdown, not general impulsivity
Goal
Build conflict-condition decision accuracy and reduce the clean-to-conflict gap
Target: conflict-condition accuracy ≥60% (from 31%), gap <20pp within 6 weeks.
02
Finding
Right-Side Timing Variability on the Dominant Side
Right CV 12.9% vs left 7.6% — gap lives in stability, not average speed. Dominant shooting side is the noisier side.
Goal
Close the bilateral CV gap and stabilize dominant-side timing consistency
Victor's injury-risk profile from this battery is Moderate, driven by right-side timing variability on the dominant shooting side and a post-task cortical asymmetry signal. Strong protective factors (no fatigue, regulated physiology, clean impulse control). Note: this rating is based on neural data only. A movement assessment (how Victor lands, decelerates, and cuts) hasn't been done yet — once it is, this section will be updated with the complete picture.
01Body Regions
Neural-Driven Exposure Regions
Two exposure regions identified from this battery — right-side timing variability and post-task cortical asymmetry. Neural-substrate only; biomechanical battery (landing, braking, lateral cuts) pending. Click a region to see its mechanism trail below.
Risk Context
What's Working For HimThese strengths make his risks less dangerous.
Non-dominant side is clean and consistent. The timing variability constraint is specific to the dominant right side, not a general motor-control issue.
Calm baseline physiology (55.9 bpm HR, 13.7 br/min respiration) indicates no acute stress-state interference with performance. Controlled assessment conditions.
No Within-Session Fatigue Signal · Late-third RT directionally faster
Both sides improve late session. Neural ceiling holds at 98–100% throughout. No fatigue-amplification of any other constraint during this battery.
What's Working Against HimThese factors make his risks more dangerous.
Right-Side Timing Variability on Dominant Shooting Side · CV 12.9% vs 7.6% left · IQR 46.5ms vs 32ms
Rep-to-rep inconsistency on the dominant side creates variable loading patterns during shooting and finishing cycles. Tendons adapt better to consistent loading than variable loading at equivalent volume.
Post-Task Cortical Sensorimotor Asymmetry · C3/C4: +1.34 right / −0.85 left
Right-side sensorimotor cortex shows elevated post-task activation relative to left. Potential substrate for bilateral motor-control asymmetry under accumulated load — needs biomechanical confirmation.
02 — Mechanism Trail
Per-Region Causal Detail
Trigger → Compensation → Impact, with watch list and action protocols.
02Causal Chain
Trigger
Compensation
Impact
03High-Risk Contexts
Fatigue State
Game State
04What Staff Should Watch
05Action Protocols
›
›
›
›
Risk Score Breakdown
Six neural-driver categories that decompose the body region risk picture.
Pressure-Driven Exposure38MODERATE
Pressure cost of 58ms is moderate — not the dominant finding. The critical pressure signal is in accuracy (73% → 31%), not speed. The +58ms cost alone is manageable; the 42pp accuracy collapse is the acute constraint.
Decision-Quality-Driven Exposure85ACUTE
42pp accuracy drop under conflict is the dominant performance finding. This is the highest-severity signal in the battery — clean-condition accuracy is intact (73%) but conflict collapses it to 31%. Condition-specific breakdown, not general impulsivity (zero false starts on clean cues).
Fatigue-Driven Exposure8MINIMAL
No within-session fatigue signal. Capacity holds at 98–100% across all four segments — late-third reactions directionally faster on both sides. Fatigue is a protective factor in this battery, not a risk amplifier.
Variability-Driven Exposure45MODERATE
Right-side CV 12.9% vs left 7.6% — the dominant-side timing is the noisier side. Combined bilateral CV 10.8% is within normal range, but the asymmetric distribution (dominant side more variable) creates uneven loading during shooting and finishing cycles.
Asymmetry-Driven Exposure33MODERATE
True bilateral gap of 21ms (left 322ms, right 343ms). Right-side dominant side is consistently slower and more variable. Gap is stable (doesn't widen late session), but the persistent right-side asymmetry in both speed and variability defines the exposure picture.
Impulse-Control Protection10MINIMAL
Zero false starts across all reaction trials confirms clean impulse control. Victor doesn't pre-commit. The decision accuracy breakdown is specifically under conflict cues — not a general inhibition failure. This is a meaningful protective factor.
Risk Modifiers
Factors that modify how the underlying risk picture should be managed.
Decision Accuracy Collapse Under ConflictIncreases Risk
73% → 31% accuracy under conflict (−42pp) means that in contested play, wrong decisions become the dominant outcome. This is the acute performance constraint. Injury mechanism: wrong reads under conflict force correction movements, which create asymmetric loading demands on the dominant side — amplifying the right-side timing variability signal.
CV 12.9% on the dominant shooting side vs 7.6% left creates uneven rep-to-rep loading on the right upper extremity. Tendons and soft tissue adapt to consistent loading patterns — variable loading at moderate volumes is a known driver of overuse pathology even without extreme training load.
No Within-Session Fatigue SignalReduces Risk
98–100% capacity retention across all four session segments is a significant protective factor. No fatigue-amplification of the right-side variability constraint during this battery. The constraint is condition-specific (conflict-cue), not a fatigue-dependent finding. This battery understates the risk that would emerge under a higher-volume or higher-load assessment.
Regulated Low-Arousal PhysiologyReduces Risk
HR 55.9 bpm, SDNN 24.0 ms, respiration 13.7 br/min — well-regulated baseline with no acute stress state. This is a protective factor: neural performance data from a controlled physiological baseline is more representative of actual capacity than data collected under sympathetic activation.
Post-Task Cortical AsymmetryNeutral · Monitoring Value
C3/C4 sensorimotor lean: +1.34 right / −0.85 left post-task. Right cortical sensorimotor zone shows elevated post-session activation. Volume is insufficient to confirm this as a risk driver — but combined with the right-side timing variability pattern, it warrants monitoring. Biomechanical battery will help confirm or revise this signal.
Biomechanical Battery PendingNeutral · Assessment Gap
This battery is neural-substrate only. Landing mechanics, braking patterns, and lateral cut data have not been collected. The right-side exposure picture could be revised (higher or lower) once biomechanical data is available. Current risk classification (Moderate) reflects neural-only evidence and carries appropriate uncertainty.
Time-Horizon View
Risk scenarios separated by temporal context.
Confidence & Limitations
Overall confidence: MODERATE
Reaction trials and Stroop trials — sufficient for direction of the patterns but limited for absolute thresholds.
Reaction asymmetry curves use 4-segment bins as a proxy for time progression; coarse-grained, treat as directional rather than precise time-series.
Right-side CV 12.9% is based on the trial distribution from this battery; volume is sufficient for pattern direction but not for precise sub-population comparisons.
Body region attribution is inferential from neural performance patterns and basketball biomechanics, not directly measured at tissue level. Biomechanical battery (landing, braking, lateral cuts) is pending — will resolve sided attribution and confirm specific structures.
Brain-body alignment phase values were not surfaced in the available analyst output; only summary indicators are usable.
First baseline assessment for this athlete — no longitudinal comparison available. Trend direction will require follow-up assessment in 4–6 weeks.
Injury risk inferred from neural performance patterns and mechanism mapping; this is a vulnerability identification framework, not a medical diagnostic tool.
