I take it you did your courses with Joe Radamowski?
Joe Radomski (spelling).
I don't think he is teaching the rEvo. Paul requires ownership of a unit to be a current instructor, and AFAIK Joe is not teaching on them.
Instructors Perspective:
I require a candidate to already be a proficient diver, and in my area that means being a proficient drysuit diver who is able to manage buoyancy well. The first dives with a RB are always iffy from a buoyancy control standpoint, but what I expect is "good progress" towards what will be obvious mastery of the skill by the last of the "training" dives and before the "observed dives" where the training pair (I prefer to train pairs) is asked to conduct a full day of diving "solo" while I shadow them and observe their procedures. That's the last day of diving on the initial course (where Paul Raymaekers requires that we dive to minimum depth of 30 meters, seeing as how we are certifying them to 40...). This is always a boat dive on a wreck in my current curriculum. "Quarry-Only" trained divers are no longer certified by me, although I confess to having done that previously.
Prior to that "graduation day" dives, where the divers are exptected to perform as if I were not there, the training goes from "kneeling while doing basic muscle-memory bang drills, etc" to "doing the same drills neutrally buoyant", to "full bailout from depth", which is actually done twice, once using "same divers bailout" and second using "other divers bailout". Expected performance includes neutral buoyancy during the ascent, including safety stops.
I have stopped training after one day, spent a day doing remedial buoyancy skill training, and then resumed "rebreather" training for divers who do not demonstrate basics in the first day.
I have sent divers home after two days, telling them to become proficient with a drysuit before coming back, and when they have come back we have done an open circuit "buoyancy skill test dive" before rebreather training resumes.
All of this comes down to the standards of the Instructor. The word gets out when an instructor is "easy" or "makes you earn it". Divers self-select to instructors that meet their needs... some seek out the hardest path, and others the path of least resistance. I have seen divers who sought the path of least resistance die soon after training: It's hard for the dive shops who sell gear and train divers in a high volume environment to tell customers that they are not well suited for training, and to turn away that several thousand dollar profit sale/training/accesory-sales package of cash. That brings us to the circular argument "should you train with a "professional" who relies on his instruction to pay his mortgage", or should you "train with someone who is a "professional quality" instructor but who has no real financial incentive to accept as a student those who are marginal". It all comes down to the ethics of the individual instructor. There is ZERO doubt that fast tracking for commercial reasons exists, and leads to a subset of poorly prepared and poorly trained divers who might have done the minimums, but who are really not adequately prepared for solo unsupervised diving.
Experience is gained slowly... but time spent diving "badly" is not "experience". Is a guy making fast-food burgers on a grill for ten years someone who has "ten years experience as a cook" or is it someone who has "ten days of experience as a cook" multiplied by 300? Experience is gained when you are working at and "just past" your prior levels. If you are not improving, you may as well stop calling it "experience".
Dave
.
