Hi Michael, Happy New Year - thanks for your response which has got me thinking. You wrote regarding unconscious signals; “So I would prefer start from a know nothing state moving to signals that are presented with no content attached.” In your original post you had told several metaphors to your group, and it was during this that they accessed their unconscious signal. My assumption here is that you led them overtly and perhaps covertly through many states and stories, each of which had the express intention of eliciting an unconscious signal. How does this equate with a “know nothing state - no content attached?” Presumably they had to process each of the examples you gave - both conscious content and unconscious process. Does your elicitation process for unconscious signals go along the lines of - settling into a state with “nothing” on your mind i.e. free floating and a-contextual, asking your UM to present a signal for “yes” or something similar, then awaiting whatever response comes up? When I have attempted to do it this way I have come up with very little! What specific instructions can you give to help me out with this process? You wrote in response to my process for eliciting a congruence state: “The problem is such past events can be heavily diluted with other representations such as doubt that occurred as part of the process.” I agree that if you take only one episode of a congruent decision that indeed may be the case. However if you elicit several examples of congruence across contexts and focus on the kinaesthetics, then the content will drop out leaving the state itself. This is currently the only way I have to reliably get that signal. As regards anchoring and what I termed process states you said: “I am not sure specifically what you mean when you refer to process states. From where I sit all sates are process states - although the labels we use to describe them indicate that some are more process orientated than others, but I think that’s more to do with labelling than what is actually occurring at FA.” I agree that all states have some degree of process going on - some more than others.  What I didn’t really make clear is that some states, such as crossing threshold, thinking you couldn’t then surprising yourself when you did, etc, are working at (I believe) a logical level above states like confidence, pleasure, fun etc, which are usually used in collapsing anchors. The “process” states will tend to “organise” the other states and provide direction to boot. For example, crossing threshold involves (minimally), before threshold, threshold itself, looking back post threshold at what you used to do, looking forward to what you will be doing instead. You can mark these four out spatially as several “individual” states and take the problem state through it giving directionalised change. The standard collapsing anchors tends to be simply building up as much positive K as you can to “squash” the negative K. As I see it, simply asking someone to think of a threshold experience when they said “enough is enough” (as a single anchor) will often do the trick. You also wrote: “If the anchoring is successful the new response will occur at FA prior to linguistic representation- and that is the essential key - making sure the anchor fires at FA once the anchoring intervention has been done. There is a significantly reduced value in a person saying post FA - "oh s**t, I feel like I need to fire my anchor now". I agree entirely that when significant change occurs it is usually the case that “the solution” is automatically triggered in the old context without conscious intervention. Often it is only afterwards that the person recognises that they failed to have the old response. And sometimes they fail to notice even that - which I interpret as great change-work!! That’s the kind of mastery I want to have! All clues gratefully accepted  ;o) I am in broad agreement with the rest of your post and appreciate the depth of your reply. Best regards, Lewis.