@abhishek_pYes, it wasn't easy as keywords (Examine, CE etc.) were hardly used. Also, I personally think UPSC just evolved. Too many toppers/institutions had ad nauseam been telling how it was necessary to break questions into sub-parts and then have this format of intro, body, conclusion. In the previous years, the nature of the questions facilitated it but not this year (at least on the whole). It was neither easy to break the questions into sub-parts.
Mains 365 content will get you better marks in Vision tests. Forum notes content will get you better marks in MGP tests. When one writes either of the test series for a long time, if pursuit of marks is the sole aim, then you tend to get institutionalized in their approach. Their rankings system leads to ultra-competitiveness and there is relentless pursuit to score better marks at least to gratify one's ego. Eventually, if you stick to their 'mantras' you start scoring better too. While this may not be bad per se it may not translate to similar results in Mains.
Thus, in my opinion, it may make more sense to give tests across the board (but the issue is affordability again) and stick to one's core notes supplemented with CA content from various institutions. Ultimately, it is about writing relevant content. Last year's AIR 1 seems to have done that. However, when I seesomeof the other toppers' copies, they all seem to have completed the test papers with rich content including properly filling pages. Then the question arises - were they able to replicate the same in the Mains with exam pressure and all that? Did they complete tests strictly in 3 hours while writing Vision tests? I am not very sure.
