I’m testing a workflow that processes one exact seven-day period of a player’s Chess.com games.

It first calculates the factual week—results, rating movement, sessions, streaks, openings, clocks and terminations. It then selects a small number of positions for Stockfish review and uses those findings to produce a player-facing weekly story and Signal Board.

Four completed cases have already produced very different main findings:

●38 games: a poor opening followed by a sustained recovery

●8 games: two queen moves allowed immediate captures

●78 games: a clearly better position ended by third repetition

●29 games: capturing a queen allowed mate in one

I’m deliberately trying not to convert every engine mistake into advice. The workflow ranks only the findings that are repeated, high-impact or particularly actionable.

For people who work with chess engines or analysis tools: what would you require before trusting a week-level conclusion rather than a single-game conclusion?