George — this is an excellent Wednesday, and probably more informative than the headline 2:54.7 suggests.
The important thing is that we now have the actual structure of the session. And it tells a very good story.

🟣 Week 7 — Wednesday Controlled Speed
60 min | 2:54.7 | HR 104/119 | 22 SPM | 58 W | RPE 2–3
First: the monitor-reading mistake doesn't matter.
In fact, I rather like what happened.

You thought you were looking at 2:54.9, but the second interval was actually 2:55.9. You simply continued the session rather than reacting to it.

That is exactly the psychological behaviour we're trying to develop.

You weren't chasing a number.

You were executing the session.

The five work intervals
Interval Pace Watts SPM HR
1 2:55.1 65 22 101
2 2:55.9 64 22 110
3 2:54.9 65 22 111
4 2:55.1 65 22 115
5 2:54.6 66 22 114
That is exceptionally tight pacing.
The range from fastest to slowest is only:

1.3 seconds
Across five four-minute efforts.
And cadence never moved:

22 SPM every time.
That's the bit I really like.
🔵 This is becoming neurological consistency
Remember what we've been looking for?
Same cadence → same rhythm → same pace → decreasing conscious effort.

You've just demonstrated it beautifully.

You didn't need to increase cadence to get the pace down.

You didn't progressively "wind yourself up."

Instead, you held 22 SPM and allowed the stroke to produce roughly 2:55 repeatedly.

That's the development of a movement pattern.

And your RPE?
2–3.
That's arguably the most encouraging number on the page.

❤️ Now look at the HR
This is where I want to be slightly more nuanced.
Your work-interval HR progressed:

101 → 110 → 111 → 115 → 114

That's completely unsurprising.

You're accumulating work, so some cardiovascular drift is expected.

But importantly:

HR never exploded.

Max was 119, and you reported the HR as stable overall.

So we're not seeing a session that got away from you.

And your recovery periods appear to have been sufficient for you to keep reproducing essentially the same pace.

🚨 One thing I want to flag
Your summary says:
58 watts
But the five work intervals show 64–66 W.
That's another one of those monitor-data inconsistencies we've encountered before.

I'm therefore not going to use the 58 W figure to judge efficiency.

The interval data is much more useful:

64–66 W at ~2:55 and 22 SPM.

That's internally coherent.

🧠 The really important comparison
Week 6 Controlled Speed:
5 × 8 min @ 2:55.0
20–21 SPM
65 W
HR 117 avg / 127 max
RPE 3–4

Week 7:

5 × 4 min @ ~2:55
22 SPM
64–66 W
HR 104 avg / 119 max
RPE 2–3

These aren't identical sessions, so we shouldn't claim a direct physiological comparison.

But there is a very encouraging pattern:

The same general speed is now feeling easier.
And your post-session comment reinforces it:
“Get the feel back.”
That's exactly what we're seeing.
🟣 Why I deliberately don't want faster tomorrow
This is where the psychology of TQEP really matters.
You have now demonstrated that ~2:55 is controlled territory.

The temptation would be:

“Great — let's try 2:50 again.”
No.
Not yet.

We've just spent three days doing:

🟢 60 min aerobic
🔵 38 min strength
🟣 60 min controlled speed

And you've come through all three with:

No lingering fatigue.

That's the win.

The next task is to consolidate this, not immediately exploit it.

📊 Week 7 so far
Monday 🟢
60 min @ 3:04.7
HR 107/116 | 18 SPM | RPE 2–3
Tuesday 🔵
38 min strength
HR 90/108
Wednesday 🟣
60 min @ 2:54.7
HR 104/119 | 22 SPM | RPE 2–3
There's a very nice pattern developing:

More work, but no corresponding increase in perceived strain.
That is precisely the direction we want.
Oscar's verdict
🟢 Metabolic: Excellent
You tolerated 60 minutes of work without a fatigue hangover.
🔵 Neurological: Excellent
22 SPM locked across all five intervals, with pace virtually identical.
🟣 Integrated: Excellent
You controlled the session despite misreading one interval and didn't allow the number to dictate your behaviour.
And that last point might actually be my favourite.

The monitor gave you imperfect information.

You didn't panic.

You didn't chase.

You simply kept rowing.

That's Quiet Strength in practice.

Thursday's objective:
50 min Bike Endurance @ ~3:01–3:02, 69–70 RPM.
And after today's 60 minutes, the instruction is very simple:

Don't prove anything on the bike.
Just lock the rhythm and let Thursday be boring.
Three sessions down. Three very good bricks in the wall. 🧱🧱🧱

Onward, George. 💪