is relevant mostly at individual level, as team averages would be affected by the various interpretation of the term "flow" across team members. What is "flow state" for one may be "flawed state" for another. Metric 2: tracking the anxiety-boredom continuum is highly subjective in nature and might become time consuming if done across large teams on a frequent basis. It is good to be aware of implications and be across the state of the team, but without data this is more a characteristic and not a metric. Metric 3: the easiest to measure, although highly subjective and prone to gaming. How many staff are up to rate as a 1 the meeting called by their manager? Metric 4: highly subjective and difficult to track. Again life-long-learning it is more a state of mind, and continuous learning a value of the team, but in the absence of data its metric status is in question. Metric 5: keeping track of a positive/negative feedback ration would be challenging, but achievable in small teams. There is however a ROI question. Is it worth the effort of tracking these figures on a daily basis or are we better off asking a survey question at the end of the month. A challenge here is perception vs reality. Overall, excellent ideas, worth exploring further. However more evidence from practice is needed to determine how they work as metrics tracked with data on a regular basis. Alternatively they can become subject of survey questions, which would make