In an ideal world, of course, every student would be educated in their zone of proximal development, and thus would be more likely to have a healthy perspective on imperfection (and grades as a possible venue for such). If that were the standing practice, skipping, compacting and acceleration would not have to be associated with negative impacts on self-perceptions tied to grade performance.
This is why, from a systems angle, increasing flexibility and normalizing the (excellent) list of placement strategies posted above ought to be advocacy goals.
OTOH, dstricts, schools and humans all diverge from ideal, to varying degrees, which is why placement decisions are ultimately highly individual, and the result of balancing the unique and holistic needs of the learner (and their family) within the practical constraints of a given educational ecosystem. I've mentioned before that in my FOO, my parents placed us with a target of about 1.5 grade levels -below- our projected true instructional level, mainly to compensate for asynchrony (in EF and social-emotional development, principally, and to some extent in fine-motor). Even when homeschooling, we have sometimes had to make tradeoffs between what a child might be capable of learning under perfectly scaffolded conditions, and what family resources (tangible and intangible) will allow for in the moment.
Which, again, is why placement decisions are ultimately individual.
