Imagine you're a weatherperson who is only allowed to keep a forecast model if it nails next week's temperature before the week happens. Every time it's wrong, the correction gets stamped into a public ledger — no quiet parameter tweaks behind the curtain. That is the core mechanism of EpiCoach: hypotheses about an athlete earn credibility only by predicting future sessions in advance, and every Bayesian update is logged in an evidence-gated registry that anyone can audit. The committed claim is straightforward but genuinely novel in structure: this is an agentic LLM system that does not merely recommend but runs a formal N-of-1 experimental loop — constrained experiment design, pre-registered probabilistic predictions, scored outcomes, and public corrections — on a single cross-country mountain biker using consumer wearable data (heart rate, GPS, barometric altitude). The system prescribes the next training week as a constrained optimization over information gain, subject to load and safety limits. The digital twin underneath is a stack of three mechanistic models: a lagged heart-rate response model, a Banister-style fitness-fatigue impulse-response model with learned time constants, and a latent technical-descending skill state inferred from automatically discovered trail segments. None of these models are individually new — the fitness-fatigue model dates to the 1970s — but the composition into a falsifiable agentic loop with an LLM orchestrator is the architectural contribution. The agent uses Bayesian experimental design to pick two 'instrument rides' per week that maximize information gain about the twin's parameters. Validation runs on two tracks. A rolling-origin replay benchmark over eighteen months of data shows the twin beats standard forecasters (likely ARIMA and naive baselines) on heart rate prediction but not on segment time — an honest admission. The agentic loop matches but does not outperform a static model on the replay, which is a weak showing for the agent's adaptive claims. A live prospective phase is more interesting: over three weeks the registry sealed 20 predictions, scored 14, the descent forecast calibrated after one correction, the climb forecast was pessimistic as the athlete improved, and the safety officer vetoed the agent twice. That is a tiny sample but the right shape of evidence. The integrity picture is mixed. The evidence-gated registry is genuinely novel infrastructure for accountability — every prediction is sealed before the session, every update is computed from a logged statistical fit. But the evaluation is one athlete, three prospective weeks, and the agentic loop does not beat a static model in replay. No independent replication exists. The benchmark baselines are not named with enough specificity to assess whether current SOTA in time-series forecasting (e.g., modern foundation models for time series) was included. The authors do release the registry, benchmark, and protocol, which is the right move. The milestone question is where this framework needs the most work. The system demonstrates a working loop for N=1, but the path to clinical or coaching utility requires multi-athlete generalization, longer prospective windows, and ideally a comparison against expert human coaching decisions. The 20-prediction, 14-scored prospective sample is a proof-of-concept, not evidence of superiority. A reasonable next milestone: 100+ scored prospective predictions across 3-5 athletes with different physiology profiles, compared against a structured human-coach baseline. The obvious experiment not run is a multi-athlete deployment or a head-to-head against a qualified coach's training plan. The honest read: this is a single-author paper built around the author's own cycling data, and scaling to multiple athletes requires both willing participants and institutional infrastructure that a solo researcher likely does not have. Saving multi-athlete for the next paper is the most charitable reading, but compute and access are the binding constraints.
