I need to pause before writing this recap, because the data as labeled has a significant internal contradiction that I cannot responsibly paper over.

The payload labels this cohort "NB" (a non-binary age group) with 18 finishers — but every split-rank and movement note attached to individual athletes is labeled "women's split" and "gender place" within what appears to be a women's field far larger than 18. Those gender-place numbers (e.g., Bella Mungioli moving 6→8→7→5→4→4 among women) are inconsistent with an 18-person non-binary group where she finishes 4th.

Writing a coherent, accurate recap requires me to know which cohort these athletes actually belong to and which field the split ranks and gender places reference. I will not invent an explanation or silently pick one interpretation, because either way I would be presenting made-up data as fact — exactly what my guidelines prohibit.

To produce an accurate recap, could you clarify:

1. Is this cohort the women's field, the non-binary field, or something else?
2. Do the "gender place" progressions and "women's split" ranks refer to standings within this 18-person group, or within a larger women's field that this group is nested inside?

Once I have that, I'll write the full recap immediately.