Week 13 · lab
VOD Review Lab
In this lab you will turn replay evidence into a practice decision. The goal is not to blame a player or explain the whole match. The goal is to prove one useful claim, repair weak review language, and design one next practice action.
You may use a replay, short clip, sample scenario, scoreboard sequence, coach notes, or a written match description. If video is unavailable, write a timestamped scenario from memory or teacher-provided evidence.
Lab Objectives
By the end of the lab, your review packet should show that you can:
- separate observation from opinion
- use timestamps or ordered moments as evidence
- repair a weak claim into a testable claim
- ask a root-cause question without attacking a teammate
- convert one review finding into a short practice task
Setup
Choose one match moment that affected an objective, rotation, fight, reset, resource use, or communication decision. Keep the review narrow. One good moment is better than a full-match summary with no proof.
Before you begin, define:
- game or scenario reviewed
- map, mode, or event context
- team objective during the reviewed moment
- role you are reviewing from
- evidence source used
Step 1: Build a Timestamp Log
Create three timestamp entries. If your evidence is not video, use ordered moment labels such as Moment 1, Moment 2, and Moment 3.
Each entry must include:
- time or moment label
- observable event
- team decision
- result
- first review question
Example:
| Time | Observable event | Team decision | Result | Review question |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4:12 | Two players rotated before the scout confirmed opponent location. | Team left the objective early. | Opponent captured space uncontested. | What confirmation rule should trigger rotation? |
Step 2: Repair One Claim
Pick one weak review claim and repair it.
Weak claim:
Our comms were bad.
Repaired claim:
At 4:12, three voices overlapped the objective caller, so the rotate call was missed. We need a rule for who can interrupt objective calls.
Your repaired claim must name:
- the moment
- the observable behavior
- the effect on the team decision
- the next rule, question, or practice target
Step 3: Ask a Root-Cause Question
Write one question that helps the team investigate the decision, not the teammate.
Good root-cause questions usually start with:
- What information did we have before the call?
- Which role owned the next decision?
- What trigger should have stopped or started the rotation?
- What did the team assume but not confirm?
- Which communication rule would make this repeatable?
Avoid questions that attack a person, such as “Why did you throw?” or “Why are you always late?”
Step 4: Convert Review Into Practice
Design one short practice task from your finding.
Your practice conversion must include:
- review finding
- practice task
- success condition
- difficulty increase
- evidence you will collect next time
Example:
| Review finding | Practice task | Success condition | Make it harder | Next evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Team rotated before information was confirmed. | Run five reset scenarios where the information player must call confirmed, unknown, or hold. | Team waits for the call before rotating in four of five attempts. | Add time pressure or opponent pressure. | Count early rotations and missed calls. |
Required Packet
Submit one review packet with:
- context summary
- three timestamp or ordered-moment entries
- one repaired claim
- one root-cause question
- one practice conversion
- one communication norm for future reviews
Communication Norm
Every critique must name behavior, evidence, and next action. If a sentence attacks a teammate, rewrite it before submission.
Quality Bar
A strong review packet makes the next practice session obvious. A weak packet only says what went wrong.
Your packet is ready when another teammate can read it and know exactly what moment to inspect, what claim is proven, and what drill should happen next.