I think the current system that marks moves as inaccuracies, mistakes and blunders is flawed.
In relatively even position it is too easy on bad moves and in one-sided position it marks moves that just take longer as mistakes or even blunders.
For example, a move that drops the evaluation from +9 to +5 is marked as blunder when it is more of an inaccuracy, not really harmful on its own but making the job usually slightly more difficult.
To me, a move that drops the evaluation from 0.4 to -0.4 (marked as inaccuracy by the system) is worse.
I suggest calculating recalculating the pawn unit advantage into a number that estimates how many points one player would usually get out of that pawn unit advantage.
Then mark mistakes based on result-prediction loss and not pawn unit loss.
In relatively even position it is too easy on bad moves and in one-sided position it marks moves that just take longer as mistakes or even blunders.
For example, a move that drops the evaluation from +9 to +5 is marked as blunder when it is more of an inaccuracy, not really harmful on its own but making the job usually slightly more difficult.
To me, a move that drops the evaluation from 0.4 to -0.4 (marked as inaccuracy by the system) is worse.
I suggest calculating recalculating the pawn unit advantage into a number that estimates how many points one player would usually get out of that pawn unit advantage.
Then mark mistakes based on result-prediction loss and not pawn unit loss.