"In general, I have noticed that the process is tedious if the modeler consciously attempts to rush to unconscious's work. Note the description I offered in the description of how Bandler and I modeled Erickson as an explicit example. If this not-rushing the unconscious rule is observed, then the ease (or lack of it) which accompanies the presentation of the information by the unconscious is often an excellent measure of the rapport between conscious and unconscious process. and as one maps from tacit knowledge to an explicit representation, this process is in no way tedious - it is a very excitng and enjoyable adventure." John, I found when having very few to ask about how to do and what to do and other questions that i had to try different ways to explicicate the main differences doing modeling. The main thing I struggled with was the question in what was a "NLP" model. I came to the conclusion and for me that journey lasted 2 years before i could grasp the structure of the differences and relationships a NLP model had in regards to other NLP models and such like strategies. That was tedious for me ;) However, nowadays I mainly follow the structure you and Bandler did. I also are trying other ways since it seems thats its possible to enhance the modeling process. I am well aware of the distorted things when trying to explicit the unconsious formats with language. Its so tough to explain whats so easy to do for me ;) /Robert