When I was doing sprints at the track, I once came very close to KOing a toddler who wandered directly into my path, completely obliviously.
I would expect a program to define the metrics that it wants to improve and make at least general predictions about what will happen to those metrics as I do the program. The more accurate those predictions end up being, and the more significant the change, the more effective I would consider the program to be. Through that lens, the HLM programming that I have done has not been particularly effective. Since I finished my initial LP, I have mostly used variations of this kind of programming, and on all of my lifts, I have retread the same ground multiple times. I have not seen consistent strength increases for more than a few weeks at a time, whereas I expected to make fairly consistent, durable progress for months and maybe years.
I have been using the FitNotes app, which can produce a variety of graphs that show the progress or lack thereof on my lifts and other exercises.
I'm a bit less enthusiastic. It seemed desirable to me for various reasons to become more flexible or mobile or whatever people want to call it. I tried yoga in various venues and different static stretches that I found online. Anybody who talked or wrote about improving flexibility tended to describe the goals of the program in very nebulous terms, and I didn't see anything resembling a way to measure progress or a schedule of anticipated improvements. Most of them barely even made reference to anatomy. So the bar was very low.
Supple Leopard comes the closest of anything that I've watched or read to making falsifiable claims about the program it promotes. Success is defined as the ability to adopt various positions ("archetypes") and perform various movements. The book claims that if you do what it says for a few weeks, your ability to do those things will noticeably improve. That's almost unquantified, but nobody else was offering anything better. My experience was that I did, in fact, see some improvement in my ability to get into some of the archetypes and also in some neck stiffness that had been bothering me, before the end of the two-week sampler program.
I hesitate to whole-heartedly recommend the book, however. One of the reasons that I bought it is that I find Kelly Starrett's highly praised YouTube video's fairly difficult to follow. Many of them have a conversational or stream-of-consciousness style that makes it hard for me to figure out what his actual point is and what evidence he presents. He is prone to using words that don't mean anything, like "grotty," to describe the condition of a part of the human body, which makes it impossible to know whether the exercise he prescribed fixed that condition. He sometimes employs protracted physical analogies for physiological processes, seemingly in an effort to avoid resorting to anatomical terminology or diagrams, which again make it hard for me to understand what he's trying to say well enough to decide whether it makes sense.
I hoped that having to write things down would temper these tendencies, and they did, a bit. He still takes up a lot of space repeating himself, using non-standard terminology, and trying to motivate ideas that the reader surely would have internalized before making it that far in the book. I don't think "dense" is the right word. The book is ironically heavy for the product of a man who is morally opposed to the act of sitting. I think it could probably be made a quarter to a third shorter without removing any useful information.
I have been doing the mobilization program described in the book on most days for, I think, about a year. During that time, I have noticed improvements to my form on some lifts and reductions in chronic pain that followed so directly after related mobilizations that I have to conclude that one caused the other. During that same period, I have done a lot of mobilizations that didn't feel like they were doing anything and had no obvious effects. I'd say that about half of mobilizations I do seem like they might be doing something, and the other half don't.
I am unaware of any superior program or source of information related to mobility.