An adaptation report is not a verdict. It is a risk map.
And, like any map, it is useless to anyone who only looks at the big number at the top. The value is in the details: where the axes disagree, which dimension drags the average down, what the written comment explains that the score alone doesn't.
This article is a reading guide — written for whoever is going to present this material in a board meeting and needs to withstand the follow-up question.
The structure: three axes, 21 dimensions
Every player analysed receives three independent analyses, each with seven dimensions scored from 0 to 100 and a written comment on every dimension, plus a general comment.
Tactical Analysis (G270 Method)
Tactical Style · Collective Intelligence · Tactical Rigour · Physical Intensity · Adaptation to the Role · Technical-Tactical Integration · Fit to the League
It answers: does he play the football our coach wants to play?
Institutional Analysis
Identification with the History · Winning Mentality · Rapport with the Fans · Commitment to the Project · Institutional Representation · Contractual Maturity · Public Image
It answers: does he wear this shirt and handle what it demands?
Sociocultural Analysis
Openness to Diversity · Climate and Food · Lifestyle · Emotional Ties · Communication and Language · Transition Record · Cultural Adaptation
It answers: can he live here?
The three axes are independent. It is normal — and informative — for them to disagree with each other.
The colour scale
Each axis appears on a gauge with colour bands that settle the reading in seconds:
| Band | Colour | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| 80 to 100 | Green | Strong fit. Not a guarantee, a high probability. |
| 60 to 79 | Yellow | Viable fit, with points of concern that require management. |
| 40 to 59 | Orange | Relevant risk. Only proceed with an explicit mitigation plan. |
| 0 to 39 | Red | Probable incompatibility on that axis. |
The colour is a reading shortcut, not a conclusion. The conclusion is in the text.
Mistake no. 1: reading by the average of the three axes
The most common mistake is adding up the three gauges and taking a mental average. That destroys precisely the most useful information.
Compare two targets with the same "average":
Target A — Tactical 70 · Institutional 70 · Sociocultural 70 Target B — Tactical 88 · Institutional 76 · Sociocultural 46
Target A is a balanced player, with no great virtue and no great risk. Target B is a far superior tactical fit with one concentrated, identified risk.
And a concentrated, identified risk is manageable. If Target B's problem is Communication and Language and Emotional Ties, the club can act: language lessons from day one, support for the family's move, a school for the children, a dressing-room team-mate who speaks his language.
Diffuse risk isn't. A target with 70 in everything gives the club no clue about where to intervene.
Practical rule: read the three axes separately, always. And pay special attention to the lowest one.
Mistake no. 2: treating a low score as a veto
A low score is not an automatic reason to discard. It is a reason to decide consciously.
A report with 46 on the sociocultural axis is saying: this player will need support to settle here, and the club should budget for it.
Three legitimate responses:
- Mitigate. Structure the adaptation support and go ahead with the signing.
- Compensate. If the tactical fit is exceptional and the club has a high adaptation tolerance, accept the longer curve.
- Discard. If the tolerance is low and the team needs immediate results, that same 46 is prohibitive.
Note that the same score leads to different decisions depending on the club's yardstick. That is why the DNA needs to be configured first: without it, the 46 is just a number floating on its own.
Mistake no. 3: ignoring the written comment
The score opens the conversation. The text sustains the decision.
Each of the 21 dimensions comes with a comment. That is where the difference lies between two players with the same score in Transition Record:
- one who has never left home — high risk, with no record to assess;
- one who has already moved country twice and came back both times — high risk, with a proven bad record.
Same score, very different prognoses. And it is the second case that should raise the bigger alarm.
In a board meeting, it is the comment you read out loud. The number is there to rank; the text is there to convince.
What to do with each result pattern
| Pattern | Reading | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|
| High on all three | Strong, balanced fit | Proceed. Concentrate the effort on the negotiation. |
| Tactical high, sociocultural low | Plays what we want, but may not settle | Proceed with a budgeted adaptation plan. Check the declared tolerance. |
| Tactical low, sociocultural high | Great person for the environment, incompatible football | Reassess the slot. He may suit another role — or another model. |
| Institutional low in isolation | A question of public profile, maturity or project horizon | Investigate the comment. It tends to be the most manageable of the three axes. |
| All middling (60–70) | No clear virtue and no clear risk | A low-conviction target. Prioritise another name on the list. |
| Insufficient data | There is no basis for a reliable reading | Treat it as risk: a target you don't know enough about. |
The history and the consolidated average
An isolated analysis is a snapshot. The value grows over time.
Every report is saved in the history, organised by player and by type. When there is more than one analysis of the same athlete, the platform consolidates the average per item — and the gauge starts reflecting the whole set, not the latest reading.
That allows three uses:
- Tracking the evolution of the fit. A target monitored across two seasons shows a trend, not an instant.
- Auditing the decision. Six months later, you can reopen it and see what information the club decided with.
- Calibrating your own method. Comparing what the analysis predicted with what happened is what improves the next window.
There is a 7-day interval between analyses of the same type for the same player — deliberate, so that the history means something.
When the platform says it doesn't know
There is one behaviour worth highlighting: when an athlete's record doesn't support a reliable reading, the platform says so instead of generating a fragile score.
That tends to happen with players from lower divisions, very young athletes, or those with little registered professional career.
Treat that warning as information, not as a failure: a target on which there isn't enough data is, by definition, a higher-risk target. If the club wants to proceed anyway, let it proceed knowing it is deciding with less basis — and compensating with in-person observation and video.
How to present this to the board
A five-minute routine per target:
- The slot. Why we are analysing this position.
- The three gauges. Immediate visual reading.
- The lowest axis. Name the risk before they ask.
- Two comments. The one that sustains the strength and the one that explains the risk.
- The recommendation. Proceed, proceed with mitigation, or discard — and why.
And take the exported PDF, with scores, averages by item and generation date, for those who weren't in the room.
Frequently asked questions
What is the minimum acceptable score? There is no universal cut-off. It depends on the club's adaptation tolerance and signing policy. A 60 on the sociocultural axis is manageable for someone with 6 to 12 months of patience and prohibitive for someone who needs immediate results.
Why do the three axes disagree so much sometimes? Because they measure different things. An athlete can be tactically perfect for the model and still carry a high risk of not settling in the city. That divergence is the information, not an error.
Does the report decide the signing? No. It structures the information and explains every score. The decision belongs to the club — and so it should.
Can I compare two players side by side? Today the comparison is made by opening each target's reports. Every player has their own history and their own consolidated averages.
What language does the report come out in? Portuguese, English or Spanish, according to the language configured on the platform at the moment of generation.
How often should I re-analyse a monitored target? The minimum interval is 7 days per type of analysis. In practice, re-analysing each window or after a relevant change — a transfer, a long injury, a change of role — is what adds the most.
In short
Read the three axes separately. Go to the lowest one first. Read the comment, not just the score. And remember that the same score means different things depending on your club's yardstick.
A well-read report doesn't eliminate the risk of a signing. It makes the risk visible, named and negotiable — which is all a board can ask for before signing.
Start deciding with material that withstands the follow-up question. 21 dimensions, a score and a justification on each one, history and PDF export. → Talk to the Gowl team
Read next
- From shortlist to report: how to run a transfer window with a method
- Adaptation tolerance: why the same player suits one club and not another
- G270 Method: the seven fields that explain why a signing works or fails
