"... reasonably comfortable, fluid, repeatable manner as would be expected of a diver at that certification level".
Perfect 'agency speak' that absolves the organisation and empowers instructors to set 'expectations' in line with everyone passing in the minimum timescale, with the minimum effort, for the minimum cost.
As someone who taught mastery learning to teachers long before I even thought of scuba diving, I am quite familiar with how it works. I have conducted workshops on how to do it, especially on how to train assessors in performance assessments. I have trained assessors in performance assessments. The exact same system is used around the world, including in the grading of Advanced Placement exams, SAT essays, Law School application essays, etc. I was quite pleasantly surprised when I became a scuba instruction and saw that they were using the system, because I knew how well that system works
I am truly sorry you do not understand it. I am truly sorry that you did not learn it when you got your instructor training.
Or did you get the message?
For all those who are reading this, we have been down this road before. Here is how it works. Andy (DeconDiver) starts off by misstating the standard in the way he did in the second line of post #16, omitting the part about it being done at the skill level appropriate to that level of certification. I then quote the whole standard and explain the difference. He then goes on about how "mastery" to the general public means "excellence," a step he prepared for with his non-sequitur about all students being excellent. I short circuited by anticipating that step and giving my normal response before he made his next move.
The next steps require me to spend many, many posts and many, many paragraphs explaining how it all works, dusting off the lessons I used to teach when I was a teacher trainer. So He has had it explained to him before, but he still trots out the same inaccuracies from time to time. I am very, very tired of it. I don't feel like explaining it all to him again, because he has heard it all before. I cannot tell for sure whether his inaccuracies are intentional, or if he is just ignoring the information.