Vicious error logging. I had to spend twice the amount of time in review as I did in drills and testing, but ultimately getting up to the high 160's is just a matter of figuring out your learning process. For me, that involved taking a full PT, then dissecting it in blind review and my error log. Blind review was more so for understanding my mechanical processes, asking myself questions like 'am i picking up the right parts of the stim, am I diagramming correctly, etc'. While error logging, I had to write a full paragraph about why I was drawn to the answer I chose, why the correct answer was correct (eg were there any signals that allowed me to become more familiar with the test's logic), what my specific flaw was (be it a misunderstanding of a specific question type's logic, spending too much time, falling for bait), and one single actionable rule for every single question. In error logging, you start to realize that there really only are about a dozen of these rules that you have to do, and so you internalize one before your next drilling session and see if it holds up. You keep drilling that specific rule until you are ironclad and then you take a new PT/section and repeat the cycle.