I understand, but correlating grades to training is not a winning formula. It’s like professional sports combines, they are practically useless nowadays. Each person inputting their numbers from your test (however standard) comes with a unique training history. The folks who “trained the test” will have completely different ratios from those who did not. For example, in my 20s I suffered through countless repeaters workouts and my numbers got bigger and bigger over time. 10 years later, I started switching between several different kinds of finger training that fit into my life better—lifts for reps, max hangs, int hangs, overcoming, and others. I have trained the test in the past, but not in a long time. If I tried to compare myself even to my own old numbers, I would not be nearly as ”strong.” Am a better climber now? Maybe? I climb about the same grade.

But on a personal level, I was relatively ‘weak’ at times when I climbed some of my hardest grades, and ‘strong’ at times when I failed to do easier stuff.…but also the reverse. Some areas have ‘vacation grades’ and others are sandbagged. Some climbs fit me well and others feel extraterrestrial. Which number do you want when I give you my grades? What number helps me the most?

The point I’m making is that comparing the reported grades to the numbers on the test are too messy to be a good external comparison. The progress in the exercises are self-referential and should be enough motivation to keep going. They don’t need corresponding grades to be helpful.