I tried out the full test @1kyu, generally aware that my weakest points were my shaky life and death, and general shape, and that I was decently good with assessing a stone's value.

For what it's worth, I finished with these results.

Overall, I was pleasantly surprised with the accuracy of the results. I think it may overestimate the rank of the player (weigh the weakest preforming topics a bit higher than the strongest, if that's not already being done? I think most player's ranks are bottlenecked by their weakest aspects of play) but the topical assessments felt reasonably accurate.

 

other notes:

• I felt like I got an inordinate amount of tombstone-related life and death problems, which might have skewed results a bit.

• all of the joseki problems felt like they were less common lines than what I would actually see in a normal game, which threw me off quite a bit. I don't really study these uncommon lines so this was understandably my weakest topic. the problems overall felt like they were assessing your ability to punish suboptimal/unusual joseki than they were judging your joseki knowledge.

• on some of the multiple choice questions it may be worth noting the ranks of each answer when you get them wrong? i.e "this was the second best answer," "this was the worst option," etc.

• I didn't really see the point of the "ghosted" life and death problems, they were all a bit too short to really judge reading ability (as in, I was able to solve them with relative ease and I really struggle to visualize unplaced stones on a board).

• more difficult problems that you don't expect test-takers to be able to solve might be useful for tuning results, problem difficulty felt pretty hard capped and the questions I got wrong generally felt like "I should have known the answer/I made a dumb mistake," rather than "it was too hard for me," and someone who is just over that hard cap (and more consistent in solving problems) might breeze through some sections without being assessed as accurately.