Maybe people wouldn't be so annoyed if the feedback given had actually been worth something. The selection criteria gives a clear indication of the % levels expected at each age group for each area being considered. So why wasn't this used in the feed back? There is no indication of how close/far the climber came to meeting the selection criteria. Why? This lack of clarity leads to mistrust in the process. The feedback received amounted to half a page. Total words (not counting headings) approx. 60. Four points of Areas of Strength - 14 words. Four points of Areas to Improve - 8 words. Some of that fairly meaningless and just raises more questions than answered. Then the rest was generic growth/nutrition advice. Why didn't they include the % scores in the feedback?