To add some clarification to this statement, since the way in which people are reading this is definitely not how I intended it, but re-reading it, it’s clear that I could have done a better job.
Basically, what I was referring to was striking a balance between wanting to come up with a consistent and understandable spacing between workouts that - and this is what I left out initially - also matches up to established understanding about recovery and adaptation.
Basically, we needed to come up with something that functions algorithmically, but which also makes intuitive sense. The challenge here is if we say, “you need 24hrs between workouts…” that ends up being a problem if we interpret that as EXACTLY 24hrs. So there needs to be some “fudge” factor in there. So a “day” between workouts is not quite a day, to allow you to work out at - as I said initially - roughly the same time each day.
But there’s a huge difference between workouts that are spaced apart by - in your example - working out in the evening and then the next morning. That sort of truncated recovery is not adequate in terms of repeated loading. Now, there are workouts that do allow for that. Not every workout has a 24(ish) lockout. But the workouts that do require that do so because of the load they will place on the system.
Ultimately, the effort was to balance “flexibility” with some actual guidance about best practices with regards to training. If, ultimately, in certain cases, that prevents someone from doing a workout in close proximity to another workout, that was - to us - the more sensible decision as opposed to allowing people to stack workouts in such a way as to be ill-advised with regards to training load.