Quadrant Analysis (or Do The Numbers Lie?: Part 3)

At the advice of the savvy Robert Chung, and an attempt to see the trees through the so-called forest, I tried to do a plot of only the twenty-freaking-nine excursions. That quickly proved unwieldy with the method I used in the previous entry, i.e., Excel, and I abandoned it. WKO+ 3.0 can do it rather handily, but using it requires me to do a few things that I was simply not prepared to do to answer this question in the next few days, so I figured this would go into the bucket of Questions To Be Answered In The Offseason.

Enter the open-source cross-platform power analysis program, Golden Cheetah (GC). I've used this off-and-on over the years, but never switched over from WKO+. For whatever reason (inertia, still best-of-breed, content with it being "good enough", or whatever) I've continued to use WKO+ as my primary analysis tool despite trying others. Last year I even did some development on GC and submitted some patches, but stuck to WKO+.

However, I still had a git workspace of the source and the entire development system set up on my machine. Robert reminded me that the latest development source had QA in it, and it could do what I needed. So, this morning I rebased my workspace to bring it up to date and rebuilt. I then imported the .wko file with the 29 fast-find intervals already marked, and commenced to looking at the QA plot (called "PF/PV plot" in GC). Here's what I see:

I won't re-plagiarize the quadrant descriptions, so you'll have to refer back to the previous post for that info. However, it appears that, like the whole forest of QA points, focusing on the "trees" just in the intervals is still pretty much all over the place--at least to me. I'm not sure what conclusion I can draw from this QA analysis.

Maybe I should pay a coach to tell me. Hmmm...