I think this depends on whom you want to convince and what your measurement standards are.
Trying to convince a mainstream optometrist with personal claims and a few old photos… will be hard, even with multi-diopter improvement. My intention, if I can improve again, is to get the attention of some intellectuals, by gathering a boatload of detailed data. For that case, I think maintaining over 0.5 dpt/y from axial shortening, complete with lots of refractive measurements that are coherent with the change, should do the trick.
In this thread, Forrest’s theory on astigmatism just came up again. Look at this for an example how utterly uncaring optometry is. They basically acknowledge that certain eye movement could cause astigmatism, and then they write a little article on the theory, and that’s it!
This fits what Jake just said exactly. There’s no money in natural eye movement, so there’s no interest in further pursuing this. Voters don’t understand capitalism, and so the system pays for sickness instead of health, determining the amount paid purely based on the amount of medicine sold, and not at all on the amount of health gained. This is why there’s a huge market for lenses, but barely any market for vision habit advice.