1. Comparing names without places
A wanted player is not automatically an upgrade if they do not enter your lineup. Identify whom they replace and who will cover the outgoing player.
2. Confusing quantity with coverage
Receiving two players does not mean solving two problems. If they cover the same slot or are unusable in your format, depth may remain unchanged.
3. Hiding uncertainty in zero
“I do not know” differs from “nothing changes”. Select “Needs checking” when information is missing. An incomplete result identifies what to verify rather than pretending to be precise.
4. Comparing different starting squads
Offer A and offer B must use the same original squad. If you update the squad with A and then assess B, you describe consecutive deals rather than alternatives.
5. Forgetting restrictions
Check roles, squad limits, credits and the market window. A favourable assessment does not make a prohibited operation available.
Worked case: a positive rating hiding a gap
Fictional example: you receive a starting forward and record a substantial improvement. You give the only player who covers a required role. Adding your ratings might produce a positive number, but the final squad is not usable. The restriction must be resolved first and the tool result must lead with it.
Final checklist
- Have I written my lineup after the trade?
- Do I have usable cover for vulnerable roles?
- Are uncertain facts still visible?
- Have I checked rules, credits and agreed names?
- Would I still accept after explaining the compromise clearly?
Frequently asked questions
Can I correct an assessment after completing it?
Yes. Update inputs and calculate again. Keeping an old conclusion after squad changes is another mistake to avoid.
Does a favourable result remove risk?
No. It describes your assessments with the reported limitations and conditions.
Is a rejected proposal necessarily wrong?
No. The two participants may have different priorities or assumptions.