Capture only information you can act on
For each result, note the ending reason, approximate gate and whether the companion was rising, falling or looping backward. A compact note such as “second gate, upper branch, rising” gives more useful context than the score alone.
You can keep these observations mentally or in a simple personal note. There is no need to record every input or invent exact timing values. If you did not see the threatened edge, mark it as uncertain rather than supplying a confident explanation afterward.
Choose the most consistent pattern
Repeated upper-branch collisions while rising suggest checking when you begin reducing the climb. Repeated clearing-boundary failures suggest excursions that are too large. Camera failures suggest time spent without enough forward travel.
If the three causes differ, choose the earliest repeatable approach to investigate instead of declaring one global flaw. A single longer run can be encouraging, but it does not by itself show which part of the steering improved.
Test one explanation
Make one adjustment matched to the pattern, then observe whether that specific failure changes. An earlier reversal may improve upper clearance even if the next gate ends the attempt. Count that as evidence about the adjustment, without claiming the whole problem is solved.
If the failure stays the same, check whether the starting heading and companion were consistent. If a different failure appears immediately, the adjustment may have been too large. This small review loop keeps retrying purposeful and helps avoid responding to every ending with the same instruction to tap faster.