AA
Correct.
Both policies are flawed. The one I prescribe should be recognisable to many as what existed before the introduction of mandatory fitness testing and its insidious assimilation into ACRs. Its flaws were down to its subjectivity and the sometimes low standards of the reporting chain.
Its strength was that it was an integral part of the forces ethos - an ethos designed to produce forces that could combine all their parts and all their people to kick arse when needed.
The "new fitness policy" - or whatever it is called now - is flawed because it is narrowly focussed on producing a measureable uplift in fitness levels across the services. It's produced, implemented and managed by sections of the armed forces that have a remit purely to make the forces "fitter". Not their problem if in so doing they make the forces less able to fight.