We've tried two groups of test subjects, one of which has been working with oaths involving biscuits and Fortescue's ice cream, and one of which has been working with more serious and adult oaths. (And while the adult group might figure out what kind of thing we're up to, they are sympathetic and don't ask questions.)
Anybody who wants to go through the arithmancy with me is welcome to a full discussion. I just remember Caradoc's eyes glazing over every time we used to talk about this sort of thing and don't want the rest of you to snore in public while reading your journal.
When we try the reduced test oath, we can't find any weaknesses in it. But also there seems to be a lack of flexibility. I think the irrational terms are fundamentally a weakness.
My sense of a solution is for the firm of Prewett and More Prewett to rewrite the oath, possibly using Fawkes as a binding pole since his death wouldn't release the oath, and making it something of a corporate oath. And modifying the terms somewhat to require a double-release instead of a single release, and all of us retaking it. Including to be honest, the supporters, because the supporter bindings are another point of weakness in my opinion.
As always, we cannot guarantee that nobody is breaking an oath we didn't administer. And I'm not sure the terms of this oath are insufficiently breakable since it's not an Unbreakable. On the other hand, I don't think we want it to be an Unbreakable. But with the Headmaster, saving your presence, Professor McGonagall, in hiding, I also have concerns about whether he knows the oath is whole and certainly about whether he can be relied on to tell us so under present circumstances.