Hey Mattis!
That touches on a fundamental challenge in skill acquisition. Knowing when to move on is not always a matter of intuition or feeling, especially early in one’s training. In structured systems like our curriculum, criteria for progression are often externally defined to mitigate subjective bias. For example, exercises are typically repeated until a set of clearly observable benchmarks (e.g., pressure control, edge resolution, gradation continuity) is consistently met (e.g., an particular set of alignments with a target or model.)
Your experience—where completed work feels like the best in the world, even while intellectually you know it’s not—is a well-documented phenomenon. It’s part of what Anders Ericsson calls the limitation of “naive practice” in his research. Without clearly defined goals and immediate feedback, we risk reinforcing habits rather than refining them.
Deliberate practice—a core tenet of expert training—requires a continuous loop: attempt, feedback, correction, repeat. In this loop, the role of a coach or mentor is often indispensable because they can provide external feedback and help calibrate your internal sense of “good enough.” If you’re self-training, a rigorous use of reference comparisons and objective checklists (like those in the ANI LOD/LOP guides) can function similarly.
So when do you move on? Simply speaking, you do so when your results consistently meet specific benchmarks that align with the objective function of the exercise and your confidence is reasonably high.
There are a number of high-res exercise examples available here:
If you’re unsure what those benchmarks are or how to assess them reliably, then a long-distance apprenticeship or structured mentorship might be exactly what you need—not because you lack drive, but because you are smart enough to recognize the inherent blind spots in solo development.
The difficulty you describe in pushing yourself isn’t a flaw—it’s a reflection of what nearly all developing experts face. You’re not alone in that. But recognizing this and seeking strategic scaffolding—like external review or structured goalposts—can make all the difference.
In addition-a word on confidence moving forward (written for a post not long ago.)
Training Tip: Advancement: When Should You Move to the Next Exercise?
In skill-based learning programs like the Waichulis Curriculum, each step builds on the last—this is called Hierarchical Skill Development. Advancement is typically determined by an evaluation of both performance and learner confidence. While early performance assessments are fairly straightforward, many students ask:
“How much confidence is enough?”
On a scale of 1 to 10, a minimum confidence level of 7-8 is recommended before moving forward. Here’s why:
7 (Competent) → You feel you understand the exercise, can execute it with minimal errors, and correct mistakes independently.
8 (Proficient) → You feel you can perform the exercise with consistent control and accuracy, though you still see areas for fine refinement.
At this stage, you’ve built the core skills needed to take on the next challenge without major setbacks.
Why Not Wait for a 10? While aspects of our program align with Suzuki’s “perfection policy,” perfect confidence isn’t required for progress! In fact, waiting for a “10” can sometimes lead to stagnation or diminishing returns. It’s also important to note here that as your skills grow, so does your ability to perceive higher-resolution errors—sometimes exceeding the target resolution of the exercise itself. This can create a misleading sense of regression, even when actual performance is improving.
This is why moving forward at 7-8 confidence is advantageous —many refinements happen naturally over time, and significant growth comes from testing skills in new contexts rather than waiting for some perfect level of confidence that is likely shifting with continuing experience.