Inline with this... can you please confirm that in the Performance Report, "bars" refers to a figure that is correlated to the strategy BarPeriod?

I think that it does, because if I adjust BarPeriod in my strategy, the corresponding change in total # of bars between "WFO test cycles" and "Training cycles" seems to be about inline (I say "about" because it is not a direct correlation, but that could be simply because you are building the requested BarPeriod and there would be cases in m1 data where bars could be incomplete, for example)

Anyway, if we have a correlation for BarPeriod in the Performance Report, then it would be possible to make a ratio between this and the total Simulation time. That figure "might" be useful in comparing strategies (as discussed above) and possibly-more-importantly, for building strategies that are tested in a consistent way.

What I mean by this is:
If I have a BarPeriod 120 strategy tested across 3 years (156 weeks) of historical data --
and I want to compare it with a BarPeriod 240 strategy... then I may potentially want to test it across 6 years (312 weeks) of historical data for consistency. It would seem inconsistent to compare the BarPeriod 240 strategy against only 3 years of data.

Likewise, having this type of measure would also provide a way to control the effect I discussed above, where older historical data "could" be somewhat irrelevant in the design stage of a new bot.

So if it is true that "bars" does correlate with BarPeriod, then I would like to also request that you could include a count of the # of weeks in the Performance Report on the "Simulation Period" line... that would give a single time figure that could be used in such a ratio.

THANKS,
and if you have other thoughts on this I'd also love to hear them.