Condensed Real Completed-Run Analysis

Insights Anonymized production room • Flower • Equipment details withheld

Cultivar A: Strong Finish With a Clear Density Opportunity

Condensed from a real Growgoyle completed-run analysis This public view reorganizes and shortens the underlying report; it is not the in-app report layout. Names, dates, room details, and select values were changed to protect facility privacy. The full in-app report includes score breakdowns, strengths, opportunities, phase analysis, and data-quality notes.

Condensed decision summary

Primary lever identified: dosing verification

High confidence in recorded miss Correctable process gap

Supporting evidence

An operator note recorded that the Part A dosing channel had been off for the first 10 days after flip.
Finished density scored 3/10 and structure scored 5/10, while size, potency, drying, and trim execution remained solid.
More than 750 later feed events averaged roughly 32% above the recorded recipe target, and runoff EC rose through flower.

Limits and confounders

This was the first tracked run for the cultivar, so no same-cultivar Growgoyle baseline exists.
Early heat and VPD stress overlapped the dosing interruption.
The propagation source was also new, and no room-level PPFD uniformity map was available.

Recommended next move

Add a day-of-flip checklist that confirms every dosing channel, verifies delivered EC and pH within 24 hours, and records any exception before the stretch window advances.

Monitor and learn

Monitor: delivered feed, feed-to-runoff EC, canopy-area uniformity, density, structure, and finished yield.
Escalate: only test propagation sources side by side if density remains weak after execution and environment are held steady.

The record proves the dosing interruption occurred. It does not prove how many pounds that interruption cost.

Modeled opportunity, not a forecast

Approximately 4-6 lb

Directional upside if the dosing interruption materially constrained this run. The estimate helps prioritize the issue; it does not promise the result.

Scenario math 61.2 lb sanitized baseline × 6-10% recovery assumption = 3.7-6.1 lb, rounded to 4-6 lb.

Opportunity estimates are not additive. Multiple findings can describe the same constrained production.

Performance Tier

STRONG

Goyle Score™

Solid execution with a clear process opportunity

Score Breakdown (click scored dimensions for details)

🌿 Yield (30%)

BASELINE

First tracked run

⭐ Quality (30%)

Mixed structure

🌡️ Environment (20%)

Room to improve

💨 Drying (10%)

Good dry

⚡ Efficiency (10%)

100

Very efficient

📈 Baseline established: 2.55 lb/light and 0.68 lb/plant

This is the cultivar's first tracked run, so Growgoyle does not claim a cross-run trend yet.

The next comparable run will show whether the dosing checklist and uniformity work changed the outcome.

🔁 What Worked: Repeat This

11-day slow dry

Both submitted samples landed between 0.59 and 0.61 water activity, inside the facility's finished-product target.

Confidence: High

Finished potency and terpene expression

Two lab pulls measured 25.4-26.0% THC and 1.5-1.7% total terpenes despite the early-cycle stressors.

Confidence: High

Efficient buck and trim execution

The sanitized run retained a 15.0% trim-to-total ratio even with weak density and structure scores.

Confidence: High

✨ Strengths

Drying landed in range

tap for details

Strong finished chemistry

tap for details

Both lab pulls passed

tap for details

📈 Opportunities

~4-6 lb modeled

Verify dosing at every flip

tap for assumptions

Diagnostic clarity

Separate source material from environment

tap for details

Uniformity lever

Reconcile recipe and canopy-area EC

tap for details

Counts & Weights

🌱 Plants harvested: 90
⚖️ Wet weight: 416.0 lb
🍂 Dry weight: 61.2 lb
💡 Dry/light: 2.55 lb
📦 Dry/plant: 0.68 lb
✂️ Trim: 10.8 lb

Lab Results

💎 THC: 25.4-26.0%
🧪 Total Cannabinoids: 29.3-30.1%
💧 Water Activity: 0.59-0.61
🌿 Total Terpenes: 1.5-1.7%
✅ Submitted samples: 2 passed

Efficiency

📉 Dry Yield: 14.7%
✂️ Trim-to-total: 15.0%

Quality Grades

🏆 Overall: 7
📏 Size: 8
🧱 Density: 3
✨ Bag Appeal: 7.5
🌿 Structure: 5

✅ What Went Well

The 11-day dry landed both lab pulls inside the recorded water-activity target.
Potency, terpenes, size, bag appeal, and trim efficiency held up despite early-flower stress.
Operator notes captured the dosing issue, environmental response, probe work, and final quality assessment.

⚠️ What Didn't Go Well

The Part A dosing channel was off for the first 10 days after flip.
Early heat and elevated VPD overlapped the stretch window.
Delivered feed ran above the recorded recipe target and runoff EC rose through flower.
Density finished at 3/10 and structure at 5/10.

🔍 Possible Contributors

The dosing interruption is the clearest correctable process issue in the record.
Early environmental stress could have contributed to the same density and structure outcome.
The new propagation source remains a plausible contributor, but this run did not isolate it.
The persistent EC difference between canopy areas suggests irrigation uniformity deserves review.

💡 Next-Run Considerations

1. Add a day-of-flip dosing verification checklist

tap for evidence, expected outcome, and risk

2. Reconcile the recorded recipe target with delivered feed

tap for evidence, expected outcome, and risk

3. Audit irrigation uniformity between canopy areas

tap for evidence, expected outcome, and risk

4. Compare propagation sources only after the operating variables are stable

tap for evidence, expected outcome, and risk

🔬 Phase Analysis

🌿 Flower Phase

A full flower record captured the dosing interruption, early environmental stress, feed delivery, nearly 200 runoff readings, interventions, and finished outcome.

✅ What went well

The operator found and corrected the disabled dosing channel.
Environmental conditions improved after the early stretch window.
The run completed with strong potency and acceptable overall finished quality.

⚠️ What didn't go well

The first 10 days after flip lacked Part A dosing.
Heat and elevated VPD overlapped the same window.
Density and structure stayed weak, and the record cannot isolate one cause.

💡 Insight

Lock in execution and feed verification first. A genetics or lighting comparison becomes more informative after those conditions are stable.

💨 Dry Phase

The 11-day slow dry produced 0.59-0.61 water activity across two submitted samples.

✅ What went well

Both samples landed inside the recorded finished-product target.
Terpene results remained between 1.5% and 1.7%.
No change is recommended from this run alone.

💡 Insight

Repeat the dry profile and keep verifying with water activity rather than changing a process that performed well.

✂️ Bucking Phase

A one-day buck cycle retained a 15.0% trim-to-total ratio on structurally difficult flower.

✅ What went well

Processing efficiency scored 100/100.
Finished moisture supported clean handling.

💡 Insight

The processing record is a strength. Focus next-run attention upstream on density and uniformity.

📝 Evidence coverage: Full flower environmental coverage, more than 750 feed events, nearly 200 runoff readings, operator notes, interventions, harvest and trim weights, quality grading, and two lab samples.

📷 Important limits: First tracked run for the cultivar, no room-level PPFD uniformity map, incomplete runoff-volume coverage, and no controlled comparison of propagation sources.

Cultivar A: Strong Finish With a Clear Density Opportunity

✅ What Went Well

⚠️ What Didn't Go Well

🔍 Possible Contributors

💡 Next-Run Considerations

🔬 Phase Analysis

✅ What went well

⚠️ What didn't go well

💡 Insight

✅ What went well

💡 Insight

✅ What went well

💡 Insight

Make every completed run useful to the next one.