Three very different and distinct morphologies (four if you count the gorilla in the background), will most likely lead to four very different and distinct pattern variations. What objectively constitutes a good archetype (squat, hinge, upper-body movement vectors, etc) across all morphologies? Would you expect all four of these individuals to move the same from a visual perspective? Would that constitute their movement as being either “good” or “bad” respective to one another? Or would you look at how structures move in relation to one another within the same organism?
These questions are one area where I see a huge hole in the active assessment process, the other being that motor learning with increased immersion will inherently lead to improvements in testing scores and potential false-positives (a post for a different day though). This is why I’ve began leaning towards passive ROM testing that last few years, you can learn to game a movement but you...
Environment often dictates the quality of a workout. A mix of familiarity, anticipation, and the right community (lifting partners/demographic/coaches) can create an overall feeling of eustress (as opposed to distress) respective to the session. This often impacts your experience much more than your program design and available equipment selection, and these are things that everyone recognizes (often subconsciously) and inherently appreciates.
This is service, creating an environment that drives engagement and perpetuates adherence. THIS is what creates a platform for your message to be heard.
As a trainer you should be trying to recreate those variables respective to each clients needs.
Ask yourself, how do you set the environment to create eustress rather than distress?
How do you communicate with them?
Do you care?
Would you train with you?