I think we’re on a similar page. I’ve a big soft spot for TR: like the people, like the ethos, appreciate a polished product that’s free of cruft etc. I may often appear to be moaning on here, but any criticism “comes from a place of love” 
; if I didn’t care I would be bothering!
From the outside looking in, ie. based on my experience experimenting with a bit, there seem to be two primary aspects to this plan builder update, both of which amount to modest iterations of the existing plan building toolkit:
- a new wizard, with new scheduling options vs the previous fixed 3/5/6 w/o’s per week format, new “Goal” selection to help direct people to the appropriate plan
- some RLGL integration behind the scenes to help people choose (or be steered to) an appropriate volume plan.
The wizard updates seem to be a modest improvement, so that’s welcome but nothing earth shattering there.
I like RLGL’s presence within the Calendar, which although it’s often just confirming what I already feel, adds a useful sanity check - another input, and I’ve found this to be beneficial and useful.
But, the RLGL integration we’re seeing here in Plan Builder (assuming it’s RLGL “guts” which lies behind the volume suggestions, warnings etc), just seems to be a bit “off” in my experience so far. I don’t know if that’s because it overweights very recent history vs. medium-to-longer term history, but the default suggestions it gave me, volume-wise, just don’t seem particularly well informed at all (see my earlier posts for details). It seems to be calibrated towards erring very much in favour of lower volumes, which would make sense as a default behaviour if you had no history data to inform the decision, but seems distinctly off in light of the history it has access to.
No matter. These limitations don’t hugely impact me - I’m happy to intervene manually, tweak settings, adjust durations, add my own workouts, and so on, in order to knock any generated plan into a shape I’m happier with. I’d have preferred a tool that could do most or even all of this for me, automatically, (as seemed to be the claim), but really it’s no big deal from my perspective - just carry on as I did previously. 
Disappointing, though. Perhaps this will improve in time, although maybe it requires a move away from the current underlying plan structure (which these newer features here all sit atop of) before we see what better passes for real personalized custom plans…?
Regarding lack of TR response to points raised by you, I take that to mean it’s largely working as intended / per the design.
.
