Session Plan in 5 Questions

Why

The most universal grassroots-coach pain in the portfolio’s own data is planning time. A tool that turns five answers into a complete session skeleton in under a minute is the strongest possible taster for FootballGPT, which does the same job deeper and adapted to your actual players. Part of the Coach’s Compass lead-magnet family (Kevin, 2026-07-25): lane = The Agentic Coach, funnel product = FootballGPT.

What

Static interactive page at 360tft.co.uk/session-plan/ (site repo 360tft/360tft, same pattern as /which-product/):

• Five questions: age group, number of players, space available, session theme, time available.
• Deterministic client-side generation of a session skeleton using Kevin’s LOCKED framework structure (arrival game, ball-confidence/1v1 work, themed small-sided game, match play) parameterised by the answers: timings split across the four blocks, organisation notes scaled to numbers/space, and theme-specific coaching points.
• NO FABRICATED DRILLS. Coaching points and progressions must be sourced from existing Kevin material (the book, FCA extracted assets, existing site/session content). If real material only supports N themes, ship N themes; never pad with invented content.
• Result screen CTA: FootballGPT (“this is the skeleton; FootballGPT builds the full session around your actual players”) with quiz-family UTM params.
• Free Gumroad companion listing (“Session Plan in 5 Questions” printable pack: the framework structure + the shipped themes as a PDF). Listing copy drafted as a deliverable; KEVIN creates the listing (storefront action). Claims tag contacts gumroad:<slug> for a hub nurture sequence (follow-up once slug exists).

Scope

In: the page, question bank, generation logic, sourced content bank, Gumroad listing copy draft, entry on the free-resources page, addition as a router-quiz destination. Out: creating the Gumroad listing itself (Kevin), the hub sequence seed (follow-up), any FootballGPT app changes, email capture on-page (Gumroad is the gate, same as the Compass).

Never-list

British English, no emojis, no em dashes, no hype, no fabricated drills or testimonials, no Summit/ACM-enrollment copy, no member counts.

Proof before Shipped

Live 200 on the page; at least 4 traced input combinations producing correct skeletons; grep sweeps clean; Kevin review of the content bank sources.

Note (mirrored into this repo 2026-07-25): this PRD is owned and tracked canonically in 360tft-hub/docs/prd/, per the Hub_ prefix and the PRD Naming & Per-Product Queues convention in that repo’s CLAUDE.md. It is copied here only so this repo’s pre-commit Gate 1-3 PRD check has a local artefact to point at, since the implementation (session-plan/index.html) lives in this repo (360tft/360tft) while the PRD process lives in the hub. Treat the hub copy as the source of truth for status changes.

Expected Experience

• Job: a coach answers 5 questions and gets a complete, timed session skeleton for their exact group in under a minute, with real coaching points for the theme they picked.
• Peak moment: the four-block results screen, timings and coaching points visibly built from the coach’s own five answers.
• Visual bar: matches the site’s established layout: null quiz pattern, directly modelled on which-product/index.html’s question-then-result flow (same palette, same button mechanic).
• Copy bar: helpful peer voice, no hype; every coaching point traces to a named source (see Honesty artifact); the framework explanation is Kevin’s own locked structure, stated plainly.
• Never-list: no fabricated drills, no invented benchmarks presented as averages, no padded theme list.
• Proof required: live 200 on /session-plan/; 4+ input combinations hand-traced; grep sweeps clean; Kevin review of the content bank sources before this ships past draft.
• Shareable test: the generated skeleton is genuinely useful stand-alone (a coach could run the session from the result screen) — pass.
• Embarrassment test: no claim on the page is unverifiable or invented — pass (every timing split and coaching point cites its source in code comments and in this Honesty artifact).

Honesty artifact

Stated assumptions (decided during implementation, not spelled out in the PRD body above):

• Age-band time splits are derived from 16_chapter_13_age_specific.md (“Chapter 12: Age-Specific Foundations” in the book), which gives explicit session-structure percentages for four of the five age bands: U5-8 (80% Play / 20% Guided Discovery), U9-10 (60% Skill Work / 40% Small-Sided Games), U11-12 (50% Skill Progression / 50% Game-Based Learning), U13-14 (40% Skill Maintenance / 60% Game-Based Learning). The book describes a two-block split; this tool has four blocks (arrival game, ball-confidence/1v1, themed SSG, match play). Reconciled by giving arrival game and match play short fixed shares (20%/25% for U5-8 to honour its play-first framing, 10%/15% for the other four bands) and applying the book’s own skill:SSG ratio to the remaining time, split between the ball-confidence/1v1 block and the themed SSG block. U15-16 has no explicit book percentage (the chapter describes “Integrated Training” without quantifying it), so it reuses the U13-14 ratio as the closest sourced analogue rather than inventing a new figure. Full reasoning is in a code comment above AGE_SPLITS in session-plan/index.html.
• Theme selection: shipped exactly 5 themes because that’s what genuinely sourced coaching points support, not the ceiling of what could be invented. Sources per theme (also commented in the code above the THEMES object):
  • Ball mastery and 1v1 — 16_chapter_13_age_specific.md (Phase 1 “Master The Ball”: first touch that creates time and space; Phase 2 “Master The Opponent”: reading defender positioning, body feints and changes of direction).
  • Passing and possession — 16_chapter_13_age_specific.md (U9-10 “Basic Passing”: weight of pass, both feet) and the Coach’s Compass Day 1 diagnostic’s Possession Retention rubric (coaches-compass/day-1/index.html, branch auto/coaches-compass-relaunch, not yet merged): keep-vs-release decisions, movement off the ball, recognising pressure.
  • Defending and shape — the Compass Day 1 Defensive Organisation rubric (shape, pressing triggers, cover and support, communication) plus matching coaching-point language from the 328-session library (/home/kevin/media/360tft-marketing/_Source/Sessions/328-sessions-text.txt, “Final Third Game”: defensive shape, pressing triggers, cover and support). The 328-session library is paid-product IP; only short, generic coaching-point phrasing was reused, not any specific session setup, cone layout, or full activity from that library.
  • Finishing and composure — the Compass Day 1 Finishing Composure rubric (conversion rate in training vs matches, decisions in the box, technique under pressure).
  • Transitions, attack to defence — the Compass Day 1 Transition Speed rubric plus the 328-session library’s “Pitch Zones Circuit” coaching points (reacting to winning/losing the ball, structured reactions, fast counter-attacks or recovery), same reuse boundary as above (phrasing only, no specific session setup copied).
• Themes considered and NOT shipped: shooting mechanics in isolation, goalkeeping, and set pieces were considered but dropped, no source in the book, the Compass diagnostic, or the reviewed slice of the 328-session library gave genuine, specific coaching points for these beyond what would have required invention.
• Organisation notes (player-count and space guidance) are qualitative (group counts, grid counts) rather than invented numeric pitch dimensions or player-per-area ratios, to avoid a fabricated benchmark. The underlying principle (“keep games small so nobody’s queuing”) is sourced from the same chapter’s explicit U5-8 “What to Avoid” list: “Lines and queues (maximum touch time, minimum waiting).”
• The “match play” block’s coaching text (stop briefly to connect a real moment to the theme, then restart quickly) is general, widely accepted coaching practice rather than a citation-needing claim; it doesn’t name a source because none was needed for something this generic, and it doesn’t contradict anything in the sourced material.
• Router-quiz destination addition (PRD’s “in scope” list) was NOT done. The parent task explicitly instructed: never touch which-product/ (owned by a sibling PR), and that instruction overrides the PRD’s own scope where the two conflict. Flagging for whichever PR currently owns which-product/ to add /session-plan/ as a routing destination.
• Added a free-resources.md entry (in scope, not excluded by the parent task’s do-not-touch list) linking to the new page.

Known gaps (explicitly out of scope for this PR):

• No Gumroad listing created (Kevin’s action, per PRD scope). Listing copy drafted at docs/gumroad-listings/session-plan.md.
• No hub nurture sequence for gumroad:session-plan-pack claims (follow-up once the listing exists, per PRD scope).
• No analytics event firing: same pre-existing, site-wide gtag-loader gap documented in the sibling lead-magnet PRDs. UTM params on the outbound FootballGPT link are the only campaign-attribution signal available.
• No local Jekyll build run (no ruby/bundle/jekyll on this machine). Verified instead with node scripts/manual-html-validator.js and manual front-matter/permalink comparison against working layout: null pages.
• Per the PRD’s own Proof requirement (“Kevin review of the content bank sources”), that review hasn’t happened yet — flagging status as Draft until Kevin has seen the theme sourcing above.