This page re-groups gb-selection-history's own tournament-by-tournament classification table into three eras instead of two, to test a more specific question than that page asks. It consumes that page's data directly (same tournament list, same GB field-results query) and does not change anything on that page or on future-medal-potential, which this page also builds on for context. Not linked from navigation yet.

gb-selection-history classifies GB's selection mechanism into two groups - "published number" (2017-2019) and "judgement" (2021 onward) - and finds field results barely moved between them. But the judgement group itself isn't uniform, and it isn't only Munich that sits ahead of the Budapest tightening: Tokyo 2021 and Munich 2022 are both confirmed judgement-classified but predate it too. Munich's policy was the most permissive of the judgement-classified policies read for that page, with an explicit development aim ("opportunities for British athletes to achieve a GB&NI vest at a major Championships") and a record 115-athlete squad; Tokyo 2021's aim was medals and top-8 placings with athlete potential as a third priority - different wording, but also predating the tightening. That tightening - new CEO Jack Buckner's "ruthless" language, technical director Stephen Maguire's "high crossbar" comment, and UKA's first rejection of World Athletics ranking-based invitations - became concrete at the 2023 World Championships in Budapest, not at Tokyo or Munich before it.

This page asks: does GB's field-event finalist and medal rate track that specific mechanism change (holding up through Tokyo and Munich, dropping from Budapest onward), or does it track something simpler - Buckner's arrival as CEO a year before Budapest, regardless of which policy was actually in force at each tournament? If results already dropped at Tokyo or Munich, that points to something earlier than the Budapest tightening specifically.

The finalist rate does track the mechanism change, not just Buckner's arrival. GB's field-event finalist rate was 60.4% under the published-number era (3 editions), 56.8% across Tokyo 2021 and Munich 2022 (2 editions, both judgement-classified but before the tightening) - still close to the earlier group's level, not the later one - and 55.9% from Budapest onward (5 editions). The decline is gradual and monotonic (60.4% → 56.8% → 55.9%), and the pre-Budapest judgement editions sit with the earlier group, consistent with the drop tracking Budapest's tightened mechanism rather than simply Buckner's appointment a year before it.

Medal rate does not show the same pattern. GB's field-event medal rate was 7.5% under published number, 6.8% across Tokyo and Munich, and 8.5% from Budapest onward - flat to slightly higher, not lower. Medals are a much smaller count than finalists at every edition (see the table below), so this is the noisier of the two measures - but it means the "results dropped from Budapest onward" finding on this page holds for finalist rate specifically, not for medal rate, and shouldn't be read as a broader claim that GB's field events got worse across the board under the tightened policy.

Treat this as a first look, not a conclusion. Three editions in the earliest era, two in the pre-Budapest judgement era, and five from Budapest onward is a small sample either way, and per-edition results are volatile (Rome 2024's 81.8% finalist rate is the highest of any edition in either era; Paris 2024's 33.3% is among the lowest). Eugene 2022 - unclassified, and chronologically before Munich, not after - is shown on the chart for context but left out of every average above, since its policy hasn't been read at all and it can't honestly be assigned to any of the three eras.

E / F / M = entrants / finalists / medals (places 1-3), field events only (HJ, PV, LJ, TJ, Shot, Discus, Hammer, Javelin, plus combined events). Same counting convention as gb-selection-history: one entrant per athlete per event, country read from the World Athletics result URL. See that page for the full method note and per-tournament source documents.

• The three-era regrouping on this page is this page's own read of gb-selection-history's classification, not a re-classification of the underlying policy documents - see that page for the confidence level (confirmed vs secondary) behind each tournament's category.
• Small samples: three editions in the published-number era, two (Tokyo 2021, Munich 2022) in the pre-Budapest judgement era, five from Budapest onward. Two editions is still a thin basis for an era estimate - it's grouped this way because both are confirmed judgement-classified and both predate the Budapest tightening, not because two editions is a reliable estimate by itself.
• Eugene 2022 is unclassified (its selection-policy document hasn't been read at all, unlike Tokyo 2021 and Munich 2022, which are both confirmed) and chronologically precedes Munich, not Budapest. It's shown on the chart for context and excluded from every era average - its own low finalist rate doesn't fit either "held up pre-Budapest" or "dropped from Budapest" cleanly, and drawing a conclusion from an unclassified single point would overclaim.
• This page only measures whether results moved with the mechanism - it can't separate that from other things that changed at the same time (e.g. which athletes happened to be in form, event-by-event strength in a given cycle). See results vs selection approach and performance volatility for how much a single tournament's result can move on chance alone.
• Field events only, per the brief this page was built from - gb-selection-history's own table and findings cover track and field both; this page doesn't repeat the track side.