The rating is the claim. The grade is the check.
What a player did in one game, on the rating's scale, so the gap is legible.
What you are rated, and what you did, measured the same.
KPG sits on the same 0 to 100 scale as KR, so the two are directly comparable. KR is the standing claim; KPG is what he did in this game. The distance between them is a number, not a feeling.
On one scale, a divergence is a number, not a vibe: rated 85, grading around 78, so either the rating is high or the role is wrong. The read names which to check rather than silently moving the number. A single game is noise; the trend is the signal. A rating you can never check against performance is a claim with no receipt.
Illustrative engine read on the real KR-KPG cross-reference (KPG on the universal KR scale, the trend as the signal, convergence versus sustained divergence, no auto-mutation). Composite player, demonstration figures.
It rewards doing the job, not filling a box score.
A grade built on counting stats rewards volume and the players who chase it. KPG is built on possession value instead: each action scored by its points-per-possession effect, weighted by role and archetype, scaled by shot quality, and corrected for teammates and game state.
Empty volume rewarded, padded lines inflated.
A quiet defensive game read as "did nothing."
A garbage-time flurry read as production.
Weighted by the position and archetype (the same OPF as KR).
Quality scales the base: a hard shot made beats an open one.
Corrected for the supporting cast and the game state.
The grade is tuned to be right rather than flattering: do your job well in a hard, live game and you score well on modest counting numbers; pad a dead one and you do not. It reads the contribution the role existed to make, at the difficulty it was made. Believable over impressive, one game at a time.
Illustrative engine read on the real KPG stages (possession-value action base weighted by position and archetype, quality scaling the base, supporting-cast and game-state adjustment, minutes credibility, level normalisation through KLVN, the KVision tracking upgrade for the off-ball actions). Composite players, demonstration figures.
Players roll up into the team grade. They do not add up to it.
KTG grades a team's single game against what it was trying to do, outcome and process, corrected for opponent and stakes, on the Team KR scale. The KPGs roll up as one input, but the team grade is never their sum, because shape, scheme, and game state matter beyond any line.
Graded on the process as much as the result, a side that dominates and loses and a side that wins against the run of play both read honestly. The seam back to the players stays open: one bright performance in a poor team result is preserved as the true useful thing it is. The team grade explains who drove it without erasing what they did.
Illustrative engine read on the real KTG structure (the four components RVE, EFF, CTRL, and CTX, and the KPG roll-up that is one input and not a sum). Composite team, demonstration figures.
One game is noise; the trend against the rating is the honesty check.
Rate what they are. Grade what they did.
A single game on the same scale as the rating, so the gap is always investigated, never buried, and never mutates the number.