Michael Balint (1954) cautioned over 60 years ago that “The greatest mistake we could make would be to consider our present training system as a final, or even settled, solution of our many problems” (p. 157). We must remain conscious of Balint’s warning today, insofar as the possibilities for replication and enactment of individual pathology, by all who engage in the analytic training enterprise, continue to be numerous and compelling. If improperly managed these challenges can compromise, if not destroy, the candidate’s opportunity for personal growth, professional development, and successful entry into an analytic career. Consequently, the exact nature of the training analyst’s role has been the focus of vigorous discussion throughout the past 60 years. Some, citing the risk to neutrality, objectivity, and transference of the training analyst serving in multiple roles within the milieu of the institute, have advocated various levels of separation and restriction of the training analyst’s function to analysis only vis-à-vis the candidate. Others, arguing that extra-analytic contact is not only inevitable, but also perhaps clinically desirable, have advocated integration, albeit carefully so.