In this session, I walk you through a practical way to evaluate animal training frameworks as progressive, regressive, or stagnant—and why those labels matter for welfare and for the direction of our industry. I define each term in a training context: regressive practices move us back toward older, less effective approaches (often overly focused on stopping behavior), progressive practices move us forward with emerging evidence and better outcomes, and stagnant practices stay stuck in “we’ve always done it this way,” even when better options exist. Then I apply that lens to four frameworks that are getting a lot of attention: LIMA, FREE, LIFE, and the Constructional Approach. I compare them across dimensions like ethical bias, scientific basis, technical precision, flexibility/individualization, and—critically—reference integrity. I also explain why I’m concerned when models rely on vague language, lack operational definitions, or lean on non-empirical sources that get repeated as if they’re scientific proof. My big takeaway is that as scientific practitioners, we should evaluate what’s functional, evidence-based, and ethically sustainable—not what’s trendy on social media—and we should prioritize frameworks that support individualized, function-based decision-making and genuine choice through multiple pathways to reinforcement.