Milestone map
Milestone map
3 milestones
Measure Baseline Adherence Rate
4 weeks (plan sessions weekly in advance, log completion after each session)
Workout adherence is the ratio of completed sessions to planned sessions. Before you can improve it, you need to measure it honestly. For the next four weeks, plan your workouts in advance at the start of each week — write down how many sessions you intend to complete and when — then log each session as completed or missed. At the end of four weeks, calculate your adherence rate as a percentage: (completed sessions ÷ planned sessions) × 100. Do not reduce your planned number of sessions to inflate your rate; the goal is an honest picture of where your completion rate actually sits.
Proof required
Submit a 4-week planned vs actual training log showing, for each week: the number of sessions you planned at the start of the week, the dates of planned sessions, and a completed/missed record for each. Calculate and include your 4-week overall adherence rate as a percentage.
What gets checked
- The planned sessions must be recorded before the week begins — not retrospectively after you know which sessions you completed. The log should make it possible to tell apart a session you planned and completed from a session you completed but had not planned
- The adherence rate calculation is arithmetically correct from the completed and planned numbers shown — if the numbers and percentage do not match, the log was not kept prospectively
- Missed sessions are recorded honestly — a 4-week log with zero missed sessions across any realistic training plan is a red flag; the goal of M1 is honest measurement, not impressive numbers
Common mistakes
- Reducing the planned number of sessions to raise the percentage — if you planned six sessions but only completed four, the adherence rate is 67%, not 100% because you later decided to plan only four sessions
- Treating 'I was tired' or 'something came up' as planned rest — those are missed sessions; scheduled rest days planned in advance are the only true non-session days
- Back-filling the log at the end of four weeks from memory — retrospective logs cannot be distinguished from fabricated logs; log completion within 24 hours of the session
Resources
Foundationstart here
Depthgo deeper
What a verifier looks for
- Ask the submitter to show you the original planned sessions from the start of any one week — if they cannot produce a week's plan that predates the week's completion log, the plans were made retrospectively
- Check that missed sessions are recorded. A 4-week log with 100% adherence on any realistic plan should raise questions about whether missed sessions were recorded honestly or removed from the planned count
- Calculate the adherence percentage from the submitted numbers and confirm it matches the submitter's claimed rate — arithmetic errors indicate the log was not kept in real time
Own a milestone like this? Submit proof and invite verifiers — sign in to get started.
Identify Missed-Session Pattern and Redesign System
4 weeks (implementing the redesigned system and logging adherence weekly)
Low adherence is almost always a systems failure, not a motivation failure. Look at your M1 log and identify the specific pattern in your missed sessions: Are they always on a specific day? A specific time? After specific events (stressful work days, late nights, social events)? Write a paragraph naming the pattern precisely, then redesign one element of your training system to address that specific pattern — for example: if you always miss Monday sessions, move your rest day to Monday and your hardest session to Tuesday; if you miss sessions when work runs late, switch to morning sessions. Implement the redesigned system for four weeks and log adherence as you did in M1.
Proof required
Submit (1) a paragraph identifying your M1 missed-session pattern with at least two specific examples from your M1 log; (2) a one-sentence description of the system change you made in response; (3) a 4-week adherence log following the same format as M1, showing your planned and completed sessions with the new system in place.
What gets checked
- The missed-session pattern paragraph cites specific entries from the M1 log — 'I tended to miss Mondays' is supported by M1 log entries showing missed Monday sessions; a pattern claim without log evidence is not supported
- The system change addresses the specific pattern identified — if the pattern was Monday misses and the system change was 'I will try harder', the system change does not respond to the pattern; if it was 'I moved rest day to Monday and training to Tuesday', it does
- The 4-week M2 adherence log follows the same format as M1 — same tracking method, same planned-before-the-week structure, same completed/missed notation
Common mistakes
- Identifying the pattern as 'lack of motivation' rather than a structural trigger — motivation is not a pattern; 'I always miss sessions that follow a meeting-heavy afternoon' is a pattern with a structural solution
- Making the system change aspirational rather than structural — 'I will be more committed' is not a system change; 'I blocked 7–8am on my calendar as non-negotiable training time' is a system change
- Tracking M2 adherence differently than M1 — if M1 used planned-before-the-week sessions and M2 uses planned-after-the-week sessions, the comparison is invalid
Resources
Foundationstart here
Depthgo deeper
What a verifier looks for
- The pattern paragraph must cite specific M1 log entries — ask the submitter to point to the specific missed sessions that show the pattern they identified. If they cannot, the pattern was not derived from the log
- The system change must be structural, not motivational. Ask: 'What specifically changed in your schedule, environment, or plan?' Motivational answers ('I decided to commit more') indicate the submitter has not identified the actual systems failure
- The M2 adherence log should show improvement compared to M1 — if the adherence rate is the same or lower despite a system change, ask the submitter to identify what the M2 log shows about whether the system change actually addressed the pattern
Own a milestone like this? Submit proof and invite verifiers — sign in to get started.
Eight-Week Comparison and Attestation
Completed by end of M2 (the 8-week log was built across M1 and M2 already)
The proof of improved workout adherence is a sustained increase in your planned-to-completed ratio, measured across eight weeks and confirmed by one named person who observed your training. This milestone requires your complete 8-week adherence log as one continuous document, a before-and-after comparison of M1 versus M2 adherence rates, and an attestation from someone who observed your training — a gym training partner, a coach, or a housemate who sees you leave for sessions — describing what changed in your behaviour.
Proof required
Submit (1) your complete 8-week adherence log from M1 Week 1 through M2 Week 4 as one continuous document; (2) a before-and-after comparison showing your M1 4-week adherence rate vs your M2 4-week adherence rate; (3) a written attestation from a named person who observed your training across the 8-week period, describing what they noticed changing.
What gets checked
- The M2 adherence rate must be higher than the M1 rate — if the redesigned system produced no improvement in adherence, this milestone cannot be claimed; the comparison must show measurable change
- The 8-week log is one continuous document with the same tracking method and format throughout — not two halves with different formats joined at the seam
- The attestation names the person, their relationship to the submitter, and describes a specific behaviour they observed — 'they trained more consistently' is not specific; 'I saw them at the gym on Tuesdays and Thursdays throughout the month, which they hadn't been doing before' is specific
Common mistakes
- Submitting two separate M1 and M2 documents instead of one continuous 8-week log — the continuity of the document is what makes the comparison honest
- Claiming an improved adherence rate when the M2 planned sessions were reduced relative to M1 — if M1 planned 12 sessions and M2 planned 6, a higher M2 completion rate does not reflect improved adherence; it reflects a lower bar
- Providing an attestation from someone who only sees you occasionally — the observer must have seen your training behaviour with sufficient frequency to compare before and after
Resources
Foundationstart here
Depthgo deeper
What a verifier looks for
- Calculate both the M1 and M2 adherence rates from the submitted logs yourself and confirm they match the submitter's claimed figures. The improvement must be measurable — not just claimed
- Confirm that the M2 planned sessions count is comparable to M1 — if the plan was substantially reduced to achieve a higher completion rate, the improved adherence is an artefact of a lower bar, not genuine improvement
- Ask the attesting person to describe the earliest moment they noticed a change in the submitter's behaviour. An observer who cannot place a specific time frame was not observing closely enough to provide a valid attestation
Own a milestone like this? Submit proof and invite verifiers — sign in to get started.