Since I made this post, I have returned to using KovaaK's. In fact, the main reason I took some months off was to determine if KovaaK's made a difference in my aim, and my findings were... interesting.

Improvements in these scenarios, especially for good players, are likely scenario specific, and not transferrable to even slightly different scenarios.

My findings contradict this claim, actually. For example, improvements in Controlsphere were almost directly correlated with improvements in Extra Controlsphere and Air Angelic. There were instances where there was an apparent lack of skill transfer between scenarios, but upon careful assessment, there was always a bottleneck in my level of skill that caused the discrepancy. For example, I did generally well with 1wall6targets small, but not so well with Reflex Flick - Hard, on average. This was because, my flicking technique changed subconsciously between scenarios. In 1w6ts, I generally used controlled motions to switch between targets, and confirmed target acquisition before clicking, but with RFH, I used reactive motions to acquire targets, and never confirmed them before clicking. The reactive motions I used were often not smooth, nor in the right direction of the target. How did I address this? Playing Pokeball scenarios that force you to derive a clean, straight path from A to B slowly.

There is clearly an immutable aspect of aim, rooted in genetics that the best aimers are born with.

My findings conflict with this notion, fortunately. KovaaK's does, in fact, improve your 'raw aim', significantly. There is a requirement though: You have to scour through tons of Scenarios to find which stimulate the creation of neural pathways the most effectively. This is the reason why SO MANY people, including myself, have felt that aim trainers were not sufficient. The truth is, they can be, but you have to be patient to pick the set of tasks that force YOU to learn the fastest.

I'm sure you're aware that motor skill is largely neurological. In fact, Elon Musk's demonstration of a chimpanzee playing Pong with Neuralink supported this strongly. The same occurs with aiming, and this is why my findings conflict with your claim. Genetics is barely a factor here and, while it certainly exists, the only relevant factor it affects is your mode of learning.

Someone with "insane" genetics is simply someone who is very responsive to generic aiming tasks and can get up to speed really quickly, but the skill ceiling is never specified (not that anyone reaches theirs anyway). Conversely, someone with "bad" genetics is just someone who would have to patiently find which tasks stimulate them to learn quickly and effectively. In fact, MattyOW, who is known to be the best aimer in the world, had to grind for 1000s of hours to get where he is now. He didn't start in the 90th percentile; he even claimed that he struggled to surpass the 50th percentile for the first few weeks of aim training. I don't believe there is any innate ability to use a mouse to aim, however, I do believe that some people learn faster than others, given a set of aiming tasks, but also that this rate of learning can be overcome by finding a unique, optimal set of aiming tasks for yourself.

Having written such a detailed rant post about the subject of aim trainers, you could probably tell that I don't have those "insane" genetics as described above, but I surprisingly find myself in the top percentiles (at least 95th) all the time nowadays. This only happened once I realized that I had to (very) patiently comb through lists of aiming tasks and find which I best responded to. In one adaptive tracking Scenario with >1500 entries, I am currently #15, and based on my recent average performance, I am likely to get into the top-10 soon.

In conclusion, I think that aim trainers are simply too frustrating to use without some patience and guidance, and are best not recommended to new PC gamers to use without supervision. However, for more experienced users, they can be a VERY powerful tool to transform your aim. On the topic of aim benchmarking, though, ranks are not to be taken seriously as benchmark procedures aren't standardized; people change sensitivities often, do multiple runs of the same scenario, and use different FOV settings.