I think you just reiterated my point. Your ability to duplicate any of them does not make you Chen Xiao Wang. I don't think they're very effective as learning tools either, or else we'd have a lot more Chen Xiao Wangs as well. If you got the chance to see what your level is compared to his, I think you would abandon the notion that ki tests as a learning tool will allow you to bridge the gap in ability. This is obviously not how these guys learn to do this stuff, there is serious work to be put in, and that's the real how-to.
Actually I think we're saying the same thing from different ends. You seem to have missed my point that ki tests aren't actually how you learn this stuff, you learn it by being taught it by an instructor, probably in much the same way you're thinking of. The tests are just the tool for that purpose. Suppose for example that Chen Xiao Wang teaches this stuff by having his students adopt a stance/position or demonstrate a movement(s). He then corrects their movements and gives advice, telling them what they were doing wrong and so helping them to develop the correct feeling to achieve the ends he's aiming for, he uses metaphors to illustrate the feeling they need to aim for and gives them feedback on their performance. That's the ki test pedagogy right there. Only the ki test methods have a basic curriculum commonly taught as a minimum criteria for not only teaching this stuff but assessing rank in ki development.
How do you know there aren't more Chen Xiao Wangs? What makes you think others aren't putting in serious work?