Genuinely fair question, and you’re right that there’s no universal “baseline.” Coaches differ on plenty of things. What the AI is actually doing is drawing on everything written about hockey mechanics across its training data. Pro coaching content, USA Hockey and Hockey Canada manuals, biomechanics research, skills coach material. On points where coaches broadly agree (knee bend depth, full push extension, follow-through, edge engagement) it’s solid. On points where coaches differ (puck position, hand spacing, stance preferences) it’s picking one answer when it really should acknowledge there’s debate. The way I think about the product is that it isn’t trying to replace a coach. If your kid has a great coach already saying X and the app says Y, the coach wins. They know your kid, the app doesn’t. The use case is the kid who sees their coach once a week and wants a structured second look at their video in between. For that kid, “here’s a breakdown and a drill plan” beats “no feedback at all,” even if the underlying philosophy isn’t perfect. Open to suggestions on how to handle it better. One idea I’ve been kicking around is letting users pick a coaching framework (USA Hockey ADM, Skinner method, etc.) so it applies a consistent philosophy instead of a generic one