See your program as a movement-pattern map rather than a list of exercise names.
Use zero when a pattern is intentionally absent.
Exercise names can hide structural gaps. A routine may contain many exercises yet still have little pulling, carrying, unilateral or rotational work. Mapping the weekly set distribution makes the program easier to inspect at the pattern level.
The tool uses a user-selected floor rather than an invented universal minimum. That matters because not every goal or sport needs every pattern in equal amounts.
A high share is not automatically a problem. A strength-focused phase may intentionally emphasize a narrower set of patterns. The flag simply asks whether the concentration is deliberate and whether other goals are being crowded out.
Use this tool alongside the redundancy auditor. Coverage tells you what is present; redundancy helps you ask whether too many exercises are doing nearly the same job.
Coverage does not mean every movement pattern should receive equal training. A strength-focused block can deliberately emphasize a smaller set of patterns, while a general program may use a broader mix. The analyzer therefore uses your chosen floor and high-share threshold rather than pretending there is one universal distribution.
Working sets give the program a common unit for structural review. They allow a user to see that a routine has many exercise names but comparatively little pulling, carrying or unilateral work. The analyzer stays at this structural level and does not pretend to infer exercise quality from the number alone.
A pattern just below the selected floor is different from a completely missing pattern. The tool separates the two so the user can decide whether the small amount is intentional or whether the pattern has been crowded out.
A general program may have eight squat sets, six hinge sets, eight horizontal push sets and only two carry sets. The table makes that concentration visible. The user can then decide whether the emphasis is deliberate or whether a different pattern deserves some of the set budget.
Coverage answers “what movement roles are present?” Redundancy answers “are several exercises doing similar jobs?” Rotation answers “how can I change the exercise while keeping the pattern?” Using the three together produces a more complete program audit than using any one alone.
No. Balance is contextual. The tool is an audit, not an equal-volume prescription.
It is the minimum number of weekly working sets you choose before treating a pattern as meaningfully represented.
They are distinct movement roles that some programs use intentionally. You can still leave them at zero when they do not fit your goal.
This version focuses on weekly set structure. Mapping individual exercises is better handled in a detailed program sheet or the related tools.