In my opinion, these are performative questions where your internal thought process and reflections are the point. The story that you use as a vehicle is more secondary. I think it's easier (both in forms like this and in interview), to first decide what it is that you want to communicate. What is the "moral of the story," so to speak? Start there instead of coming up with 6 plausible situations and trying to mold competencies around them.
I think where things can go sideways here is by trying to find ways to be memorable unnecessarily. This is a written job interview. I can guarantee you that you will be 1/1 in talking about bowhunting and collecting a renegade parrot, but the actual answer to the question is buried and very loosely related. The story drowns out the point, but I can understand that what you're trying to do is sneak in facts about yourself.
Once you have made the point and have offered thought process and reflection, you come to realize that the actual creative storyboarding that you think you need to do for this question is minimal. You don't need a story, you need a premise. A set of circumstances through which you can demonstrate that you have the appropriate self-awareness, reflective capacity, and self-correcting impulses. Looking at it this way helped me move away from feeling like I had to unnecessarily dramatize ordinary conflicts or create a spectacle out of failure in a way that reflects poorly on me as a person.
I also avoid the whole "my weakness is a covert strength" cliche. You do this often: in the first, you were too trusting of the wrong person which creates additional work for you; in the second, you are too perfectionistic; in the third, you are too kind and accommodating, etc. You want to be authentically challenged and show personal and intellectual development, which is inherently vulnerable. In that sense, it's actually OK to look bad. You have to look bad in the past in order to have a contrast with your more prepared, present self.
Another point is that what you choose to emphasize can be different depending on the school. I would tell UCSF a story about political unrest in my government role and how challenging it is to advocate for the infirm at a time in which public institutions are crumbling and the fiduciary relationship between physicians with the public appears to be wearing thin. I would tell a school like Stanford a story about an expensive research mishap that required extraordinary creativity in order to salvage data, which resulted in x, y, z unexpected innovation. Etc, etc, etc.
