In my opinion, a somewhat more realistic approach might be a bit different.
Because of a syndrome, I’m a pretty skinny guy, and none of my bows’ strength is over ~47 pounds. To be precise, I also have to add that I usually shoot with steppe bows; realistically these bows were mostly over ~#80, not just for the sake of the arrow’s kinetic energy, but because of the horn plate on the belly side of the bows starts working in this range. Long story short, I realised on the example of myself (personal experiences may vary ), that
- it is true that almost no matter what history you have with sports, you have to train for the bow exclusively in terms of strenght, and
- surprisingly, accuracy is almost independent from strenght.
When you get to your anchor point, the skeletal system picks up a reasonable percentage of the load. One may sway, of course, but screwing up a shot at that point isn’t largely because of that, but because of a whole lot of other problems; place of the nocking, the lack of a defined anchoring point, using arrows with too different physical properties, failing at distance estimation and - most often - “simply” screwing up the seemingly very easy process of the release.
Archery is all about keeping the most parameters at bay, and making each shot just alike the other.
Because of this, I think that general strenght should not be a decisive factor in accuracy directly. Maybe it should cap the bow poundage Henry can (repeatedly) shot with (or maybe - gamewise - use up much, much more stamina?), and an archery skill - proportional to the experience with a bow - should influence mainly the accuracy. Maybe this skill could go up faster with professional training, like, in the presence of an archery instructor.
The “problem” is, like I wrote, that possibly “strength” as of capability of drawing bows and “accuracy” as of capability of shooting with bows a little bit walk hand-in-hand together anyways via training and excercise.