I really like the idea of the earned credit for other PLs! 
I tend to base my mental attitude towards the upcoming workout based on the PL of the workout.
Knowing that I will get credit for other energy systems will help me mentally for the workouts that I haven’t recently done. Like when your PL is 1 and you know you can probably do a 3 or 4, but it just seems daunting when just comparing the numbers.
Love that I could gain points in areas I wasn’t explicitly training. The sunsetting of productive/breakthrough is something I will miss. Seeing I was going into a breakthrough workout somehow helped mentally prepare me for what was about to come. Surely I should be able to just look at the workout and know if its going to kill me, but that label being there was helpful at a glance.
@Nate_Pearson With this change will outdoor unstructured rides give me points without being paired to a workout?
How do you tack on a second endurance workout?
Finish the workout, answer the survey, load another workout, go. 
The changes keep on sounding better and better.
I’m wishing that I wasn’t still working through a year’s subscription on Xert, otherwise I would be back with TrainerRoad sooner rather than later
This sounds good! Any chance of extra credit for stacking workouts as well? I often do multiple workouts back to back rather than 1 long one
will there be an option to extend a certain zone? for example if i have finished my z4 workout and suddenly have 30 extra minutes to add some endurance. currently i can only extrend the power that is pinned for the cooldown. it would be nice to have a button with 30min endurance or 15 min endurance.
You can add cooldown and then just adjust FTP bias to match your power target. This works fine most of the time, but if a workout ends with a long ramped cooldown you have to continuously adjust the intensity to stay at the level you want.
Furthermore, some workouts does not allow extending the cooldown.
Yeah, and for that reason I prefer to tack on a separate workout such as Scotty. Since I use resistance mode most of the time, I could just ignore the power recommendation, too, but I just can’t. I’m weird, I know.
I think this feature need dynamically created workouts. Because you can tell that there are different workout templates and that AT does know what kind of workout it is supposed to serve (over/unders ≠ longer threshold intervals at constant power). That’d really enable all sorts of possibilities (including easier outdoor workouts).
@Nate_Pearson
I think the community has spoken, we love the idea.
Unfortunately you will get lower scores in TrainerRoad and Garmin if you split a ride into two activities Also, one epic ride looks better on Strava.
@Nate_Pearson will this fix the current poor rating of custom workouts? Will this also improve the rating consistency for sub-threshold zones? That is, depending on the workout, TR considers 85% of FTP to be both Tempo and Sweet Spot
While a higher progression level “score” might be a nice ego boost, what really matters is if this means that we’ll get a more appropriate workout from Adaptive Training or Train Now. If the PL change will result in a more accurate achievable/stretch/breakthrough rating on workouts, I say, “Great. Go for it.” Otherwise, please don’t bother.
This.
If this is achieved by raising PLs of neighboring/affected power ranges, then @Nate_Pearson should implement this. If this is just for athletes’ egos, I wouldn’t bother.
I’m not sure about the proposed changes but only because the current system is working so well for me as it is.
It completely solved the issues I sometimes had with TrainerRoad plans pre adaptive training where the plans could sometimes run away from me and I could get to the point where I was prescribed workouts I couldn’t do.
That never happens now - really is the right workout every time and the combination of FTP + threshold level + survey gives me a great indication of where my current fitness is at.
That being said, I recognise that currently the PL levels for sub threshold zones doesn’t really work.
I think this is down to how you can always complete them even if they are “too hard”. Nothing to stop you doing a level 10 sweet spot workout and raising your sweet spot PL - but it will make all your future sweet spot workouts threshold really 
This can’t happen for threshold and above - you just won’t be able to complete them.
This is what makes me believe that TrainerRoad could keep the current system for threshold and above and do something different for sweet spot and below. Personally I think that sweet spot and below should just be linked to the athletes threshold level - or at least have some kind of guard rails against going too high.
This bit I have mixed views on too - I suppose it depends on how it is implemented.
I think this would be useful to impose a “floor” for vo2max workouts, sometimes I disagree with my current vo2max level and self-select a higher level based on my previous experience - if the above is effectively doing this for me based on my previous threshold workouts then I’m happy.
My concern is how this is achieved - if the vo2max level is somehow a personal recommendation based on my personal power profile - then I suppose its fine. If it’s just based on a model of all athletes then it has the potential to render having different PL levels for different energy systems kind of redundant because you have effectively gone back to linking everything back to threshold?
The example you highlighted - a 5.1 level threshold workout equating to a 6.8 level vo2max workout might work for you - but I think that vo2max level would be too high for me. If, however, the same system ended up raising my personal vo2max level to around 5.5 after doing a workout like Vezzana then i would find that useful.
TL;DR Summarising my last two posts…
I think we need guard rails against adaptive training making the low power workouts too hard and high power workouts too easy. If this does that then I’m happy
I’m really looking forward to this! @Nate_Pearson - are you willing to divulge when this may be available in beta or early access?
+1 for these changes sound great and not confusing at all.
I don’t think it’s confusing at all. It’s the absolute minimum for that scoring to begin to make sense. So I think that’s a good change.
Will the new scoring address some of the workout level discrepancies among some workouts?
For example, Boarstone +3 versus Leavitt +5.
Boarstone +3 is 9.5 Tempo and 1.8 Sweet Spot.
Leavitt +5 is 4.2 Tempo and 6.0 Sweet Spot.
Boarstone +3 has 28 minutes at 85% FTP, while Leavitt +5 has 19 minutes at 85% FTP.
I think it’s reasonable for Boarstone +3 to have a higher Sweet Spot workout level than Leavitt +5.