I am not sure the purpose of your question, since I am not the one doing presentations on the subject.
Either way, my issue is that it vastly over-complicates the issue, it leaves out tons of the most relevant considerations to make, and frankly, periodization should be considered AFTER you have analyzed what the athlete responds to in the context of the fitness-fatigue model (this is what I generally subscribe to). Is it really worth debating block vs concurrent periodization when you can do to almost any D1 track meet in the US and see more than half the athletes warming-up improperly, fueling questionably, and have athletic trainers that think ice is the end all solution? It it worth it if your athlete is struggling to even make the regional meet at NCAAs?
One of the biggest problems I have with these theory-jerk fests, when it comes to periodization, is the fact that most of the athletes involved need to improve everything, substantially, for their season to have much relevance. If you are talking D1 T&F and a guy running 10.5/21.1/47.0/1:50.00/14.00, you will be lucky to qualify for regionals. You need to worry about improving specifically in your events every mesocycle to even stand a chance of making nationals, yet we’re worried about having athletes ready for some fantasy day/period where they will peak? That’s a silly way of addressing the training year, in my opinion.
I subscribe to the basic fitness-fatigue model. Pretty much every periodization strategy has resulted in world record performances and each continues to be successful. It is more about the art of coaching and implementing said system and having athletes that buy into it, work hard, have the talent, and stay healthy. In the context of nearly every athlete that isn’t a shoe in for nationals or a lane in the final, this approach of planning out some peak and focusing on the veracity of periodization methods simply doesn’t work. You need to be getting better all the time. You cannot afford to get away from the high performance level or you will be too far away from your goals. In that context, you need to figure out what method at a meso level is leading to continued improved performance. This will be situation-dependent, based on facility access, athlete development, weather, competition schedule, and numerous other factors that make periodization a secondary topic.
If you live in Iceland you cannot take the same approach to jumping/sprinting/hurdling as they do in Jamaica. If you are a lock to final (assuming you’re healthy), you need to plan differently than someone who needs to improve substantially to even qualify for the meet. These kinds of considerations should be driving your decision of what type of ‘periodization’ you should be using. Hell, with half to 3/4 of the coaches always talking about Plan B (and C,D,E,F,etc.) what is even the point of that perhaps?
If you focus on the fitness-fatigue model and aiming for continued advancement in your event/goal and things directly related to it, you will come to a scheme that is most appropriate and will likely vary athlete-to-athlete, team-to-team, etc. Starting by selecting a periodization model is silly. The presentation itself just further complicates and needlessly overcomplicated subject.