Schools in the top execution quartile produce 63.4% positive tier movement vs. 55.0% in the bottom quartile. The weekly cycle of data review → regrouping → targeted intervention is working. The challenge is consistency. High-execution schools don't do something different — they do the same things reliably every week.

When intervention aligns to what students are learning in their classroom and uses exit-ticket data, growth target achievement hits 70.1%. When it doesn't, it's 41.1%. This is a 29-point gap — the largest effect in the entire dataset. Many schools show high tool usage but low alignment, creating the illusion of productivity without actual student learning.

The optimal zone is 45–90 minutes per week with high mastery — producing 73.7% growth target achievement. Students pushed beyond 120 minutes per week without achieving mastery drop to 37.4%. The data is clear: quality of engagement beats quantity of time. Tool mandates that focus only on minutes are actively harming student outcomes in some schools.

Higher-quality coaches produce 8.32pp average teacher gains versus 7.19pp for lower-quality coaches. More importantly, 97.8% of teachers under the highest-quality coaches in lower-need schools hit the 5pp transformation target. This data supports a deliberate deployment strategy: put your strongest coaches in your highest-need schools, and build mentoring pipelines from your top performers.

When interventionist caseloads cross the 75th percentile threshold, missed session rates jump to 30.6% and positive tier movement drops to 56.8%. The 13-point outcome gap between overloaded and adequately staffed interventionists cannot be addressed through better coaching or training. This is a structural problem requiring a staffing solution — and the data now makes that case quantitatively for leadership.