The Minefield Beneath the Metrics: What WIN Reality Inherited. Part III: Liability

By Ken Cherryhomes Date: July 17, 2025©

[Published on xfactortechnology.com]

Preface

This is the third article I’ve written with an intentional structure mirroring a prosecutorial sequence:

• Part I: Forensics (technical collapse) The WIN Reality Acquisition of Blast Motion: Examining the Consolidation of Half a Billion Swings A critical examination of how a trove of structurally flawed, context-deficient swing data was positioned as an asset and acquired as such despite its known limitations.

• Part II: Method (how error is repackaged as insight) The Ethical Collapse Beneath the Surface of Artificial Intelligence A dissection of how artificial intelligence systems, when trained on flawed data, don’t solve error, they amplify it, polish it, and bury critique beneath coherence.

• Part III: Liability (inherited liability and the consequences of proceeding anyway). A final argument establishing that WIN Reality has inherited not just data, but legal and ethical exposure and that proceeding without full disclosure is no longer defensible.

Introduction: When Due Diligence Fails

In June 2025, WIN Reality announced its acquisition of Blast Motion, the self-described industry leader in swing sensor technology. On the surface, the move appeared to be a natural marriage of virtual reality (WIN) and motion analytics (Blast), promising a more immersive and measurable training experience. But beneath the glossy press release and enthusiastic declarations lies a festering problem, one of flawed data, unverifiable metrics, and a complete breakdown of accountability.

This isn't a business success story. It's a cautionary tale.

WIN didn't acquire innovation. It acquired exposure.

The Foundation of Flawed Metrics

The problem begins with the technology itself. Multiple peer-reviewed studies have shown that Blast Motion's swing sensor suffers from compounding measurement errors—particularly at game speeds. Angle drift, velocity misestimation, and IMU noise make the data unreliable for any precise, time-domain measurement.

However, Independent research has revealed this and other critical flaws:

• Swing speed errors increased at higher velocities

• Attack angle and vertical bat angle metrics demonstrated poor correlation to motion capture standards (ICC ≈ 0.58 for angle)

• Blast overestimated barrel velocity by 4–6 mph in multiple studies

Despite these known issues, Blast Motion has continued to market these metrics as core features. On their official product page, Blast lists essential measurements including Bat Speed, Peak Hand Speed, Attack Angle (Impact Swings Only), Vertical Bat Angle, Time to Contact, Power (kW), and Connection & Rotation scores.

Source: Blast Motion+12Blast Motion+12Blast Motion+12

Marketing Metrics as Core Coaching Tools

Attack Angle and Vertical Bat Angle aren't presented as auxiliary data; they're included in every tier of service and marketed as essential swing feedback. On Blast Connect, Attack Angle receives a dedicated definition, explanation of importance (matching pitch plane, maximizing launch angle), and recommended optimal ranges (e.g., 6–14° for line drives), clearly positioning it as a core qualitative coaching target.

Source: RPP Baseball+3Blast Connect+3Blast Connect+3

Their blog amplifies this positioning. Articles like "Attacking Bat Path Angle with John Peabody" highlight bat path angle, synonymous with attack angle, as “the most important metric that they [Blast Motion] measure.” Peabody calls the metric captured by their device the most important one for developing a proper swing path.

He goes further, endorsing not just the insight but the reliability of the measurement itself. “It gives them factual data to [sic] whether they are doing what they want to do,” he says. That statement reinforces Blast’s claim to objectivity and places trust in the sensor's accuracy to verify mechanical intent. He continues, “To be able to have the sensor tell you whether you are doing it or not… only makes sense to use as a player or to train your players with if you’re a coach or a parent.”

That amounts to prescriptive use of orientation metrics. By promoting those conclusions, Blast affirms its confidence in the device’s ability to capture and interpret those metrics faithfully.

Source: Blast Connect+10Blast Motion+10YouTube

Their "Swing Phases" blog and related training content frame orientation metrics Attack Angle, Vertical Bat Angle, and Early Connection as part of their essential coaching feedback systems.

Source: Blast Motion Help Center+6Blast Motion+6RPP Baseball+6

Blast's X account also promotes Attack Angle, describing it as key to "maximizing line drives, optimizing launch, and building a consistent, powerful swing."

Source: Blast Motion+15X (formerly Twitter)+15Blast Connect+15

The Critical Disconnect

Here lies the fundamental problem: Blast Motion publicly features orientation metrics as core product data and provides educational definitions and behavioral goals around them. However, they have never publicly acknowledged that these orientation metrics suffer from structural inaccuracies as validated by independent studies.

This discrepancy is critical. They built coaching guidance, even prescriptive feedback, around metrics that they continue to present as reliable, yet have never disclosed to be subject to significant error margins. Despite these findings, the company marketed its data as not only accurate, but prescriptive. The flagship product included features like Blast Factor, Power metrics, and AI-generated swing feedback. This wasn't just a measurement tool, it was sold as guidance. That's the line they crossed.

Optimism Without Acknowledgment

WIN Reality's communications following the acquisition were filled with reassuring phrases:

"We're not rushing to blend everything overnight." "We're here to deliver results, not confusion." "We're not changing what you trust."

They positioned themselves as respectful stewards of Blast's legacy while looking ahead to a new era of VR-based, connected training. But no acknowledgment was made of the underlying metric flaws. No caveat. No disclosure. Not even a footnote.

To investors and users, that omission may seem minor. It's not. It's what lawyers call material misrepresentation, the failure to disclose critical information that would affect a reasonable party's decision to engage with the product.

The Legal Reality: Ignorance Is Not a Defense

WIN Reality may argue it hasn’t yet acted on the legacy data. They might claim that no prescriptive guidance has been derived from Blast’s sensors under their ownership, that the integration process is still underway. But that does not erase what came before. Blast had already issued prescriptive recommendations based on flawed metrics. It had already claimed validation, leaned on MLB affiliation in its marketing, and promoted its products to coaches, parents, and teams as “advanced,” “accurate,” and “trusted by the pros.” WIN Reality publicly described Blast Motion as delivering “trusted biomechanical insights” and promoted the acquisition as creating “the most comprehensive and data-rich training environment in the sport.”

As recently as mid-2025, Blast Motion prominently featured its designation as the “Official Bat Sensor Technology of Major League Baseball” on its website and marketing collateral. This wasn’t a vague industry nod. It was a licensing claim that conferred credibility and reinforced the perception that the metrics were not only trustworthy but endorsed at the highest level of professional baseball.

WIN Reality, in its own press release, reinforced this branding, stating, “We’re not changing what you trust.” It extended that promise by claiming, “We believe that by joining forces, we can offer players a more holistic view of their swing, from mechanics to decision-making.” That language not only affirms intent to preserve Blast’s prescriptive positioning, it extends liability. WIN is not just continuing a legacy, it’s publicly reaffirming it.

That liability now belongs to WIN. If they move forward without full public disclosure and fail to isolate that flawed historical data from future products, including its incorporation into AI systems like TrainVR, they are no longer just inheriting the damage. They become complicit in extending it. Legal doctrine refers to this as the “knew or should have known” standard.

They don’t get to claim ignorance. They get to choose whether they make it worse.

MLB's Involvement: Another Layer of Risk

Prior to the acquisition, Blast Motion promoted itself as the official swing sensor of MLB. If that endorsement included prescriptive integration at any level, player development, scouting, coaching, it raises further legal exposure. Not just for Blast, and not just for WIN, but for any party that adopted the system under the illusion of objective accuracy.

The Warnings Were There All Along.

If WIN Reality proceeds without full disclosure, it won’t be for lack of notice. The issues with Blast Motion’s data have been documented, published, and discussed in public forums. Independent studies raised concerns. Articles, including my own, have laid out the risks plainly.

At this point, the opportunity for plausible deniability is gone. Whatever WIN chooses to build on that foundation now, AI models, feedback systems, player development protocols, it will be done with full knowledge of the limitations.

Their planned AI system, TrainVR, is described as connecting pitch recognition to contact point and bat path to create a “personalized, connected” training experience. If those systems are built atop unverified or historically flawed metrics, they do not just reflect past oversights, they actively propagate them.

And if WIN Reality was not aware, they should have been.

Ignorance is no longer a defense. It’s a decision.