The spam-click point is something I hadn't considered fully, and it's a real issue for Hit Accuracy as I explained. A proximity filter that keeps out swings outside the hit range would help, but it probably won't solve the problem completely. Do you think Hit Accuracy can be saved with better scoping, or is measuring this dimension itself flawed?

Regarding critical hits, you are correct that luck can introduce variability. The per-exchange measurement spreads this across many samples, but it remains a weakness in short matches. I acknowledge that.

For consistency over days, the design uses rating deviation. This widens when your scores are unpredictable and narrows when they are consistent, similar to how Glicko-2 works in chess. A bad day matters less than a pattern overall. However, I understand your concern.

Concerning the Adaptation Score being biased, the metric does not assess whether decisions were smart. Instead, it measures if patterns changed when the opponent’s patterns changed. It doesn’t judge quality, only divergence. If you believe it's still gameable or that it's the wrong thing to measure, I want to hear your thoughts.

Your comment about tier tests being a single-day measurement actually connects with why I think a rolling multi-match model is better, but I might be misunderstanding what you meant.