Well, I think there are two issues here. One is that resistance is unconscious (and therefore really not under the "control" of the client, unless he or she is willing to bring it into consciousness for discussion) and cautious implies intent, or the client's intent to hold back or not make changes or not move on in some way. I'm not sure this is the distinction you were intending to make. But as someone who works in the court system, I would tell you that I believe a change in wording in a report to the court would have the exact opposite effect that you might hope for. It would imply that you are well aware of what you need to do to change but you are refusing to do so. And although caution in making changes can certainly be a positive thing, it also requires risk taking. If you're not willing to take those risks in a reflexive way, then that's a problem.

The second issue is that this seems to just be about your figuring out who to assign "fault" to for a failure to make progress. Although it is certainly true that all professionals have a tendency to blame their clients/patients/students for a poor outcome, it is also true that in therapy, as with any other kind of professional treatment/education/training, clients or the subjects or whatever also fail to do their part or achieve what they are capable of. Of course, failures or a lack of progress can also be a complicated function of the nature of the problem, the therapist's skills or limits, the client's willingness or lack of capacity.

But I'm not sure I see the value in trying to assign blame. Wouldn't it make more sense to try to figure out with your T in a collaborative way how you can make the progress you want to?