Case 1 / Missed Playable Value

The better window came earlier.

Howieson completed the safer pass. Moreno was the higher-value option, but the cleanest progressive window appeared before the ball was released.

Animated four-frame Case 1 review sequence without the analysis panel

Animated review sequence, pitch view only. Frames 57975-58023

Executive read

Not "Howieson clearly missed an easy pass." The report asks when the Moreno option was actually playable.

The value layer identifies Moreno as the more threatening progressive option. Decision Friction adds the timing layer: at the reviewed opportunity frame, Moreno keeps almost all of his theoretical value; 1.7 seconds later, at the pass frame, the same lane has tightened.

QuestionWas the best pass really playable?

AnswerYes, but the cleanest window came earlier.

Coach readReview the timing of the window, not only the final pass choice.

Headline evidence

Three numbers explain why this was worth reviewing.

The selected pass was successful. The review is about whether a higher-value window existed before that release.

          Time gap
          1.7s
          from best Moreno frame to Howieson's pass
        

Moreno xT 0.034 higher theoretical value than the completed pass

Lane access 1.00 -> 0.36 clean earlier, much tighter by release

S_play 0.94 -> 0.81 playability fell, but did not become a hard constraint

Actual pass vs reviewed option

The model separates value from realistic availability.

SkillCorner provides the option and value layer. The report packages the extra playability context around that option.

Selected pass

Howieson to Pijnaker

Safe, completed, and low value. This is not treated as a failed action.

0.004xT

0.992xPass

receivedoutcome

Reviewed option

Howieson to Moreno

Higher-value progressive option. The key question is when it was cleanest.

0.034xT

0.914xPass

not targetedoutcome

Coach and analyst takeaway

This is a timing review, not a blame clip.

What value saw Moreno was worth asking about.

The xThreat gap is large enough that the unused option deserves review.

What tracking added The best window was earlier.

By the pass frame, the lane score had fallen from 1.00 to 0.36.

What to discuss Could Howieson release sooner?

The actionable question is timing, scanning, and window recognition.

Audit appendix

Technical detail stays available without crowding the read.

Open the sections below only when the review needs frame provenance or a plain-language metric explanation.

Frame selection and provenance

Moment	Frame	Gap	Interpretation
Possession starts	57975	-	Howieson first controls the ball.
Moreno option opens	57975	0.0s	The candidate exists immediately.
Opportunity frame	58006	+3.1s after possession start	Moreno is at his cleanest scored moment.
Pass frame	58023	+1.7s after opportunity	Howieson passes to Pijnaker instead.
Moreno option closes	58023	0.0s after pass	The option closes on the pass frame.

Metric explainer

What playability asks

Of the value this option carries, how much was actually executable from the tracking geometry at this moment?

S_play = geometric_mean(lane, pressure, receiver, movement, timing)

The geometric mean is intentionally strict. If one component is very poor, the whole playability score drops instead of being hidden by strong scores elsewhere.

What friction asks

How much theoretical value is lost after accounting for whether the pass was playable?

V_play = xT x S_play
F_decision = xT - V_play

In this case, friction is low at the opportunity frame because Moreno was clean earlier. The review point is that the lane tightened by the pass frame.

Component	Opportunity frame	Pass frame	Read
Lane access	1.000	0.358	Main deterioration: the passing lane narrowed.
Passer pressure	1.000	1.000	Howieson was not under direct pressure.
Receiver separation	1.000	1.000	Moreno stayed free.
Movement fit	0.748	0.982	Good enough at the opportunity frame; stronger by release.
Timing	1.000	1.000	The option was still active.
S_play	0.944	0.811	Playable, but less clean after the delay.

Output	Opportunity frame value	Plain-English read
xThreat	0.0344	The theoretical value of the Moreno option.
Playable value	0.0325	Most of that value was accessible at the clean frame.
Decision friction	0.0019	Very little value was lost to playability constraints at that moment.
Reason code	none	No component was constrained enough to assign a pitch-facing reason code at the opportunity frame.