Had a really good feeling about the game until i dug deeper in the analysis

After just over 12 months of spending considerable time (considerable even from a standpoint of a retired person) into a self guided study of chess with two primary goals: first to maintain mental condition, second to improve in chess and challenge myself to eventually get to MC level.

My self guided study may be far from good let alone close to optimal.
It includes time spent with my granddaughter studying beginner's level on chesskids.com (she completed lessons up to king level 14 with me overseeing it), myself completing the levels 1, 2, and 3 (beginner, intermediate and advanced) online at https://learningchess.net/us gaining their rating 1781, reaching tournament able status on chessable for time and effort spent on studying checkmate patterns, basic endgames, and some openings. Also on chessfactor.com, I am studying tactics and some basic openings.
On lichess .com, I test my knowledge in friendly game, solve puzzles (currently not too active and slid down to 2300). Recently I gained courage to enter tournaments, and got really excited about it to a degree that found it difficult falling asleep after the games played. There was feeling of elation after winning some games over higher rated opponent, as well as kicking myself for oversights and to hasty moves made in games I lost.
Al of that got me motivated to figure out what my potential strength is. There was a game I won, and felt good about my performance, especially that lichess analysis showed zero blunders, zero mistakes, and only three inaccuracies. I really wanted to know what kind of moves I played, have I found best moves, book moves, good moves etc.
I found that lucas chess r1.30 has analysis that can report those findings.
So i subjected the above mentioned nearly Perfect game to the scrutiny. In the game I played as white.
Here are findings
https://lichess.org/C6vesKoTQr9/white

As for elo performance

In conclusion, lichess analysis showed me much rosier picture than the reality is, as for having had bad moves identified, as for metric, I am unsure if Lucas chess analysis with stockfish 14 was properly calibrated either. Not knowing where exactly I might be, I continue reading and testing myself on various puzzles. Recently I found on one site suggestion that a lesson studied needs to be repeated two to four times. I do find it boring to go over the same stuff multiple times, but have found that it has merit as more of half matter learned has already evaporated. It certainly is difficult to retain patterns, theory and stuff at age of 63. As my eight year old keeps memorizing it at first and second pass, I find that my mental ability is going to be significant limitation to what level I will ultimately reach.
Another point I have noticed is that when playing higher rated opponents, I either rise to the occasion and play my best more frequently than when playing lower rated opponents. Against lower rated opponents there are many errors and blinded on both sides, while against higher rated opponents games are cleaner.
Also the games, in which I really immerse myself, stay in my memory for the rest of the day, or unfortunately night too and give me hard time to fall asleep. Is is normal part of playing chess? Is it a price to pay for playing chess? If I do not apply myself and play on autopilot, the result is disappointing. When analyzing games I lost, most of the time I do not recall that I had a real plan, idea, or other necessary ingredients needed to conduct proper game. At times I think I did not execute needed discipline such as having candidate moves, making sure move was safe, making sure most likely replays of opponent were considered etc. What kind of training to undergo to improve in this area