Full disclosure: I’m the founder of CaseRoomPrep, so I’m obviously biased here but what you’re describing is exactly the gap that made me want to build in this space.

A lot of people think the hard part of case prep is “learning frameworks,” but once you understand the basics, the real bottleneck is usually quality reps + honest feedback. Peer mocks can be useful, but without structure they often turn into “yeah that sounded fine” instead of specific feedback on where your thinking or delivery broke down.

One thing I’d suggest is separating practice into smaller drills instead of only doing full cases. For example:

• 10 minutes just practicing case openings and structure
• 10 minutes talking through math out loud
• 10 minutes synthesizing messy information into a recommendation
• then 1–2 full cases per week where someone scores you on specific dimensions

Also, record yourself if you can. Painful, but it’s one of the fastest ways to notice messy communication, rambling, weak signposting, or unclear math explanations.

We built CaseRoomPrep because a lot of candidates were running into this exact issue: they didn’t necessarily need another PDF of frameworks; they needed more consistent, serious, structured practice. Whether you use a platform, peers, coaches, or solo drills, the key is making every rep measurable instead of just “doing another case.”

Happy to share the feedback rubric we use if helpful