Psychoanalytic training has been an object of controversy for many years. Contrasting viewpoints have been advanced and enthusiastically argued. Is current training too rigid or too loose? Does a training analyst system in an Eitingon model produce corrupt outcomes? At what frequency should candidates have their personal analysis and when is it finished? How often each week should candidates see their patients? Should training be longer or shorter? When is a training complete, who says so and on what basis, etc., etc? We present preliminary conclusions drawn from detailed observations collected during structured “conversations”. We conclude whether a psychoanalytic training is “working” is not a matter of requirements. Rather it is an issue of how candidates, training analysts, supervisors and committee members, confront the dynamics that psychoanalytic training must inevitably create, due to the anxieties, desires and deep conflicts that will be unleashed and that psychoanalysis has done so much to highlight. Consequentially, we propose that training committees that seek to claim that their psychoanalytic training is genuinely and safely producing psychoanalysts would be ones who can show themselves, transparently, that they attend to the dynamics just listed and take a neutral inquisitive stance towards them. Indicators are possible.