I have two reactions to this:
1) Is this the best, most practical, advice for moral improvement that
has been found in 2000+ years of experience?
2) If somebody showed that it was not the best approach, would the
Christian religion consider this a great advance, an irrelevance, or a
blow against the doctrine of forgiveness of sins?

I am asking this question because I think I have seen just enough to
suggest that people have thought about this:
a) Near the start of Part Two of Benjamin Franklin's autobiography, he
describes how he kept a sort of score-card on himself, so that he did
not transgress without noticing it, and to motivate himself. This is at
least a proof of alternative approaches. (He claimed worthwhile
improvement from his previous condition, but not by no means
perfection).
b) I know that monasteries had codified rules. From memory, these were
framed as "do this; don't do this" rather than plans for increasing
willpower or using it more efficiently. Am I wrong? Have they considered
the problem?
c) I have read popular accounts of an experiment in which young children
are promised a second sweet if they can refrain from eating the first
for some time. Success there was shown to be predictive of future
success in life. Success there was also shown to flow from simple
strategies, such as placing the first sweet out of sight. At least some
experimentation is therefore being done, which may or may not agree with
any schemes born from religious inspiration.

It would be invidious for the church to be too specific about how to
achieve victory over sin because a) everyone is different and what
works for one will not work for another; and b) God is quite capable
of guiding you without interference from the vicar.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

God bless,
Kendall K. Down