What a subscription actually delivers

Four reports. One year. One person.

These are complete sample reports from a WWG subscription — not excerpts, not mockups. They follow a single fictional subscriber across a full year, so you can see how each tier builds on the one before it.

AI organises and computes. Physicians judge. Every word of clinical interpretation in these reports is written by a named physician — never generated.

Tier 1Weekly

Weekly Physician Report

“What happened this week, and what is worth paying attention to?” A two-minute read. Your metrics against your own baseline, a data-quality grade, and one priority action. Shown at cycle 6 — an early week where a work trip pulled the numbers below range.

Tier 2Monthly

Monthly Summary Report

“What patterns emerged this month?” The analytical tier. Traffic-light dashboard, four-week trend charts, and the Lifestyle Correlation Analysis that no wearable app can produce. Shown at cycle 16, where both the correlation table and the heat map are live.

Tier 3Quarterly

Quarterly Physician Letter

“What has changed over the quarter, and what does the longer pattern suggest?” A letter, not a dashboard — deliberately. Health Arc Narrative, an Outcome Audit of every recommendation, and the Baseline Evolution graphic. Shown at cycle 13, the first quarter. Countersigned by the Medical Director.

Tier 4Annual

Annual Wearable Intelligence Review

“What does the full year tell us?”The flagship. Twelve-month sparklines, a full-year Recommendation Retrospective, and “What Only a Year Reveals” — findings structurally impossible at any shorter horizon. Shown at cycle 52, personally authored by the Medical Director.

Why the four cycle numbers differ

Each sample is shown at the cycle where its own defining feature first becomes available — not at one shared snapshot date. That is deliberate, and it is what makes the set honest.

Report	Cycle shown	Why this cycle
Weekly	6	A typical early-tenure week, with the personal baseline just active from week 5
Quarterly	13	Must be cycle 13 — the Baseline Evolution graphic is structurally defined as week 4 vs week 13
Monthly	16	Past week 12, so both the correlation table (week 8+) and the heat map (week 12+) are live
Annual	52	The first Annual Review — shown deliberately without year-over-year comparison, which does not exist for a first-year subscriber

These are four documents, not one template

Depth increases with cadence. Chart density does not — and that is the clearest evidence these are purpose-built. The Quarterly deliberately drops the dashboard entirely in favour of narrative.

Capability	Weekly	Monthly	Quarterly	Annual
Question answered	What happened this week?	What patterns emerged?	What changed this quarter?	What does the year say?
Charts	0	6	1	6
Dashboard	—	Yes	Deliberately absent	—
Physician narrative	129 words	572 words	731 words	1,047 words
Recommendations	One priority sentence	Full 4-element format	3 named priorities	Year-2 forward plan
Baseline comparison	6-cycle avg + baseline	4-week window	Week 4 vs week 13	Week 1 vs week 52
Attestation	Physician pair	Pair + full QA	+ Medical Director countersignature	+ Medical Director authorship
Audience	Subscriber	Subscriber	Subscriber + provider	Subscriber + provider + shareable

Also in this set

The shareable Year in Review card → — produced as a separate file from the Annual Review, at photographable dimensions, carrying counts and directional statements only.

About the data

All four reports follow one fictional subscriber, “Alex Rivera,” across 52 consecutive weekly cycles. The dataset is internally consistent: weekly values aggregate into the monthly figures, monthly into quarterly, quarterly into annual. Every chart on every page is drawn from the same underlying series.

No real subscriber data, no real physician names, and no medical registration numbers appear anywhere in this gallery. Physician names are clearly fictional and labelled as illustrative throughout.