Understanding mixed oututs in Pio solver out put.

An in general , how should I approach these complicating outputs when there is no clear way to build heuristics whan the output contains so much randomness which would be impossible to a human player to plement in practical play.

Yup I agree.
I think that the best way to approach this is to go with the general case — if a box is >90% check, just check and don't worry about the rest — like A5s in your diagram.
If it is more mixed — like AQs — you would choose the aggressive line vs passive opponents and the passive line vs aggro opponents.

Keep in mind that no-one ever will suggest that a player memorize these charts. They're used after the fact to analyse play. The idea is to get to the point over thousands of hands that making a sound decision is instinctive.

Sometimes it is easier to draw conclusions from the overall patterns in the output. But very often If find that the is no clear pattern and almost every hand is a mixture between betting and checking. How do you personally go about drawing conclusions in those scenarios?

Originally posted by BengtArne
Sometimes it is easier to draw conclusions from the overall patterns in the output. But very often If find that the is no clear pattern and almost every hand is a mixture between betting and checking. How do you personally go about drawing conclusions in those scenarios?

when I checked or folded, and the solver output (or just plain chart in my case) says I should have bet or raised, then I consider it a mistake — and vice versa.
Sometimes, playing counter to the charts or solvers makes sense when you have history on the player.

For example, in this post https://forums.pokerstrategy.com/forum/thread.php?postid=3370348#post3370348 I include a chart that shows a clear call from BB over CO, yet if CO was a known nit, I might have folded.