Robert, I have always believed in the explication and exploring of differences of opinions and perceptions as a good way to learn. Sometimes in my eagerness for this pursuit I forget to be corteous. I am sorry if you found this to be the case with my previous reply? Since I had no direct experience of the process you described I could not say so much about it directly. I did point out that some of the things you claim as advantages of that process are already present in the new code change formats. And I simply disagree with your claim that changing with a game just isn’t enough - that depends on what criteria you bring to the process. Maybe changing with a game is not enough for you, given your set of criteria, but for me, in many cases (and when I get it to work!) it is indeed enough. I also made some requests for clarification firstly regarding your use of the word “self-monitoring” - I assumed that you were refering to statemonitoring, since this was one issue I was addressing in the post you replied to. Secondly, and more importantly I stated that I was unclear regarding the procedure you proposed. Step 1 and 2 are clear. Regarding steps 3, 4 and perhaps also 5 I am still unclear. “3. Add resource from third perspective ie the scope outside the context involved. This can be the game propsed in whispering or any high quality state from any other area that outside the context of the the 2 circles. 4. Add the third scope to the decision circle. 5. Add the change to the decision circle to the problem circle and presto solved.” Prompted by your response and since I agree with the sentiment that experience is louder than thought I did try to follow your suggested procedure, but found myself not knowing how to proceed or guessing at several points. Since I know you I know that there is usually plenty to learn when you are around or when you offer a set of comments or procedures, however I was not able to get it from the description you offered this time. Best regards Thomas