Anna lost 1-6 4-6

According to the ITF live centre Olivia has changed her nationality to GER 

Q2: ANANE, Soumeya (GBR) UNR lost to CASTELEYN, Emily (BEL) UNR 6-7(6) 4-6
Q2: POPESCU, Anna (GBR) UNR lost to TUTUNARU, Luminita (ROU) UNR 1-6 4-6
Q2: SONNEKUS-WILLIAMS, Olivia (GBR) UNR lost to GLAUDE, Laure Line (BEL) UNR 7-6(4) 1-6 3-6

This is shaping up to be our worst week of the year so far.
We have inadvertently been very good so far this year at having a large proportion of even our less storied players winning at least one match in any given week, often against ranking or expectation.
This week, the reverse is true, and the QR1 losses her added to those in Israel and elsewhere mean those players left will have to all have exceptional weeks to balance things out by the end of their collective runs.
Even though we've had good success from the $25K group, they haven't had to achieve that to put us past a 1.000 wins to entries ratio becasue of all the unlikely early wins we've been having.
The little milestones from unfancied players lay the foundation for the more headline grabbing achievements in this respect.

I disagree, I think you need both. Sure, it's no good having a dozen players all reach QR2, - ratio = 1.000 whoop-dedoo! - and that be the end of things.
But, if you only have high end achievement, people tend to look on from afar and think, "'that' player is good, good for them", without more actively considering that they could do the same, or even try. But when you see more ordinary, relatable achievement, and an overall groundswell of continued success, people want to be a part of that, you build a critical mass.
That little aggregation of small parts is good for the sport, and ultimately leads to the big MD successes somewhere down (no, up) the pyramid.
It's trickle-up tennis-nomics!

While accepting the importance of all players and a base ( as I said I hope to see all players progress ), my point was really considering ordering good and bad weeks by a straight unweighted* average of wins over entries.

Personally if we in the last couple of weeks had had a similar or even more early losses such that they overrode the 25K girls win vs entry success rate I still couldn't have considered these weeks anything other than good, indeed very good. Any stat that was trying to tell me otherwise would simply not be tieing in with how I look at it and I suspect many others would look at it.

So points taken but not to the extent of turning good MD weeks into overall poor weeks or this week already being declared as shaping up as the worst week of the year without the MD girls hitting a ball yet.

I just personally can't use a basis that weights Gabi's 25K final victory the same as a QR1 15K win in an overall ordering of weeks.

The wins vs entries is what is, that particular measure, not at all uninteresting and some guide to the week but to be used to virtually headline what is a good, bad or worst week, not for me. That is essentially our disagreement or at least different outlook. Neither is necessarily right or wrong. 

The last 2 weeks were to me very good, this week might be too if the MD girls have big successes. Certainly even better with success lower down ( and I take the points as to why we certainly need that base and we have in the forum talked much about the lack of home GB opportunities ) but I just don't agree on degree in the overall look at the week in declaring good and bad weeks.

I would also say that while people in general and potential young players may not be able to connect as much with Gabi as a 15K QR1 player, the inspiration given to many will be much more than some player's QR1 win, even maybe for those who know that player. That is important too and reason why success in MD 15K, 25K level and above, particularly big runs and titles, is very good.

* not that I am asking you or anyone else to come up with some sort of weighted formula. I believe we can often tell a really good week for GB women's tennis anyway without figures, like these last 2 weeks.

Not about matches played though. Wins per entry, per active player. An individual player can't play three, lose two in a normal week (Only in non-normal weeks: e.g. as a LL, Zhuhai RR, FED Cup etc.)
The rough guide I like as a facet of overall performance is: how close to 1 win are we for every active player in a given week.
If 1, our players are winning & losing matches ; if far below 1, we are losing matches more often; if far above 1, we are winning matches more often.

It's very hard to get much above 1.000 unless both players at the bottom end are winning some matches AND other players are having deep runs, because many of our players do lose in QR1 at $15K week in, week out.
That deficit needs to be made up by multi-win (QF, SF+) weeks. Depending on the number of entries, you'll need more good runs to cover the greater # of early exits.

That is why we suffer in weeks with a GB event: a lot of players get an outing, but struggle to win any matches, and as most players in a certain range will come to the GB event if there is one, rather than spreading out to other similar level events where they could also win matches, they end up, to some extent, taking each other out at the home event. Yes, we're guaranteed a win from an all-GB tie, but we can't get two. Which we might be capable of if those players (particularly our better players) were in two separate continental events.
So, there aren't enough players left after we whittle ourselves down, for all of them to 'go deep' in the week, and balance out the original losses in QR1, or by R32 WC.

Clearly, the week last year when Johanna won Miami was a good week, even though nobody else did a thing, and our ratio was awful. There are two measures in action there, the good from the individual high-profile fabulousness, these are the easy to see bright shiny bauble achievements.
But there's also the, "You know what, everybody this week outperformed at their own individual level, and actually, this keeps happening" sort of week, that very gets washed out, or dazzled away by the bright shiny baubles.
Last week was a combination of both, alongside the fabulousness of Gabi's title, Harriet, Katy & Laura , there were a lot of performances that exceeded any realistic expectation by those individual players at the bottom end of the scale - where winning a QR1 is a big deal, or gaining your first point and so on.
I like to try to speak to that side of things, because I like the small, almost human-interest, stories, as well as the categorically quality tennis player plays good, better, great, tennis debates.

But, OK. I'll keep my general nonsense to myself - meaning in the nonsense thread - rather than filling out Event threads, like this. Event comments in event threads. Not a hard parmesan rule; definitely not a brie, a semi-hard Edam sort of a rule.
Hungry now.