Criticism on 1st Year PhD report In my institution I am required to pass a first year assessment for my PhD, which I have done so successfully and without any remedial action required.

However, the examiners report is quite critical. For example, it states that my talk was overly-technical for the audience and that my report assumed knowledge from the reader of many field specific terms. It also stated that I focused too much on my own theoretical interests and the report did not have a wide enough scope. It also listed several improvements that could be made to the report, although these were minor imo.

Some areas were good, for example my viva performance was quite satisfactory and apparently I'm a highly motivated and creative student. However, the amount of space given to criticism was proportionally much higher.

Should I be worried about this?
I think that the criticisms which you describe are within the scope of constructive criticism. While you should not ignore them, they are not in themselves indicating any kind of "failure".

Depending on your discipline, and on the particular supervisor(s), feedback on progress reports of this nature can vary greatly. Some supervisors only write comments if they have serious concerns; others, who are basically satisfied, may still wish to give detailed suggestions for improvement. So it is difficult for strangers on this site to offer conclusive advice; you should probably approach your supervisor or some kind of departmental "Postgraduate Tutor" if you are worried about this report.