Example report · Level 6
A Level 6 whose stats are fine and whose calendar is not
Two profiles at the same level, 28 ELO apart, with completely different diagnoses. This is the one where the problem is not in the game.
This is a real FACEIT profile, anonymised. Every statistic below is exactly as the public FACEIT API returned it on 2026-08-13 — nothing is illustrative and nothing is rounded for effect. The account name, avatar and match ids are replaced, because there is no reason to attach a stranger's name to a permanent page analysing their play.
The report underneath is the same report you get for your own profile, produced by the same engine. It is frozen rather than live so the analysis written around it keeps describing what the page shows.
Compare this account with the Level 6 role example and the value of ranking leaks rather than listing stats becomes obvious. Same level, 28 ELO apart, similar match counts, both sitting at a 50% win rate. Completely different reports.
This player’s mechanics are unremarkable in the good sense: ADR 72.1, K/D 1.01, 41% headshots across 9,661 rounds. Their opening duel win rate is 47.8% against a 51.1% median — under, but by three points rather than ten, and they take only 15.8% of their team’s opening duels, which is below median. They are not overextending. They are not being carried.
The top leak is scored 77, and it is about when they play.
What the report found
Across the eight sessions in their recent history:
- Two long sessions ended negative. Not two bad games — two evenings that started even and finished down.
- The two-loss rule was broken twice. Two straight losses, and they queued again.
- 88% of sessions included matches after 23:00. Seven of eight.
That last number is the one that does the work. This is not a player who occasionally has a late night. This is a player whose default is a late night.
Why this outranks their other leaks
The report put role second at severity 59 and utility third at 50, and both are genuine. But the arithmetic of a session is brutal in a way a three-point entry deficit is not.
A single lost match costs about 25 ELO. A three-point improvement in opening duel win rate is worth maybe two points of win rate, which over 40 matches is roughly one extra win — 50 ELO, earned slowly.
One session that runs seven matches and finishes 3–4 costs 25. One that finishes 2–5 costs 75. Their history contains a 3-match evening at 1W–2L, another at 1W–2L, and a seven-match evening at 3W–4L. That is 75 ELO given back inside three sittings, in a profile that is 97 ELO from Level 7.
The leak is not that they lose games. It is that the shape of their play converts a 50% win rate into a downward ratchet: they play until it stops going well, which means every session ends at a local minimum.
The uncomfortable part
The fixes on this card are the ones players ignore, because they are not about Counter-Strike:
Two straight losses ends the session. Not a break — the session.
No queueing after 23:00. Your late sessions are where the drawdowns live.
There is no mechanical practice, no aim routine, and no crosshair placement drill. There is a rule about when to stop, and the estimated gain from following it is 2–4 points of win rate — the same range the report gives the role leak on the other Level 6 profile, from a change that costs nothing but discipline.
One thing the report gets right by refusing to
Their utility card fires, but not for low output — they do 6.6 damage a round, well above the 4.66 median for their level. It fires on the mix: 4,361 non-flash grenades against 4,159 flashes. So the target is the ratio, not the damage. The report does not tell them to increase a number they are already winning, which is a distinction the engine got wrong until this example exposed it.
The report, in full
Everything below this line is generated. It is what the site returns for any profile you paste into it.