In my institution I am required to pass a first year assessment for my PhD, which I have done so successfully and without any remedial action required.
However, the examiners report is quite critical. For example, it states that my talk was overly-technical for the audience and that my report assumed knowledge from the reader of many field specific terms. It also stated that I focused too much on my own theoretical interests and the report did not have a wide enough scope. It also listed several improvements that could be made to the report, although these were minor imo.
Some areas were good, for example my viva performance was quite satisfactory and apparently I'm a highly motivated and creative student. However, the amount of space given to criticism was proportionally much higher.
Should I be worried about this?