Kinda yes, but kinda no. To a degree, I see TR (with the addition of AT in particular) as trying to apply the least emphasis on numbers possible while still getting desired results.
Nate and TR have taken very specific steps of NOT including the great number of metrics out there (ATL, TSB, etc.) despite numerous requests to add them from some users. That aspect of offering what I see as a relatively minimal data set is key to TR’s approach from all I have heard via Nate.
Sure, they came up with a new set of metrics, Progression Levels along with Workout Levels that are kinda the salt & pepper of the TR menu), as well as a survey step with “numbers”, but these were a new means to improve and replace other metrics (IF & Duration to a degree) in order to make plan creation and adaptations more targeted to each user.
AT in particular is trying to leverage the data behind the scenes for what I might call a “plug & play” approach. Once you have an FTP set and plan on the calendar, you can largely ignore the stuff of old and let Adaptive Training alter your plan that follows you performance.
So, I see them trying to pull most of the old number crunching out of the user’s hands if they want, and let AT drive the bus. It is largely my experience at least and parallels the pendulum swing of my own experience. I made the full “noting to everything… and then dial it back a ton” transition in my training over the last 6 years. I am on the “less is more” approach now and AT is working super well with that.