That preparation is the missing bit. I arrived to a fitted tool, arranged tray and loaded job. I described the transfer as easy to set up.

Change that particular claim first. Easy to follow during a prepared demonstration is something you experienced; easy to set up is something you haven't described doing.

Did you make any decisions yourself, or mainly carry out the demonstrator's instructions?

The distinction need not diminish the session. Someone choosing a course may care that the demonstrator explained things well, whereas a buyer estimating independent setup effort needs a different kind of evidence.

Mostly followed instructions. I operated the prepared sequence with supervision. The demonstrator decided how the trial should be arranged.

Then say that directly, rather than assigning yourself a percentage of the work nobody measured.

I wouldn't require a diary of every instruction either. Name the consequential help: preparation, who chose the setup and whether you were guided during operation.

Agreed with Hazel. It should describe the basis of the impression, not become a speculative calculation of how long Theo would take alone.

Yes. I'm replacing the setup claim in the opening, not hiding the correction below it. Thanks, Isabel; I had been about to add only a final note.

Hazel, agreed. I meant identify the important assistance, not count every spoken prompt.

Keep the part about what felt clear to you. A qualified positive review doesn't need to apologise for being positive.

And avoid replacing the old claim with a new one about eventual unattended reliability. The observed scope remains that supervised spacer-block trial.

That was never demonstrated. My revised draft says I liked operating the prepared task under guidance; it makes no unattended or independent-setup claim.

Thanks for coming back with that. I was wondering whether the original setup claim would stay visible above the correction.