Hi JPG Do you get the impression that we may be the only two people curious about what you proposed? Anyway. 1. "2.1 In 6 step reframing the positive intention is obviously available (and sometimes only) at the unconscious level. Driving longer tee shot is a conscious goal." The positive intention is always available unconsciously and sometimes it is available at the conscious level. The apparent contradiction disappears under the impact of congruency: that is, when the conscious and unconscious agree on a specific goal - e.g. driving longer tee shots. 2. "I see no constrain in the alphabet game toward longer driving." The constraint is the context selected - that is, the context selected in step 1 from 3rd and visited in 1st in step 2, and stepped back into in step 4, contains all the auditory and visual stimuli that define (the set of) contexts in which the high performance state will be re-activated automatically (without conscious participation). It also contains the implicit objectives of the player. These implicit objectives of the player in that specific context are adequate to constrain the change (what in 6 step reframing is the set of behaviors that satisfy the positive intention resident in that context for that player. As you stated, "the conscious goal must be available to the unconscious when it makes the best available choice" 3. "Does the know-nothing state vanish at the first time it encounters a relevant context or does it stay alive ? Which would mean that the unconscious got the right and responsibility to select its best available choice more than ONE time (when it encounters the anchor within a (relevant context))." Precisely - one of the beauties of the application of the content free high performance state is that it adapts itself continuously to the range of context that trigger its re-activation and since each of the members of this series of differing context implies variations in the objectives of the player, the high performance state adapts itself in part to those requirements. The know-nothing state does, indeed, collapse when confronted with a specific context and the high performance state adapts itself to the requirements implicit within it. This, by the way, for me is the first coded example of what I would call generative. 4.Your point about random (natural) anchors is well taken. Yes, of course, we are constantly associating (anchoring ourselves) to the various experiences that form the fabric of daily life. Fortunately, there are very few examples of natural anchoring that occurs with the same precision that a well=trained NLP practitioner can make an artificial anchor occur - the timing to ensure the anchor is established at the most intense expression of the state and the purity of the focus at the point at which the anchor is established (distracted or focused state...). There are some examples of natural anchoring - phobias - that have enough intensity that they are in the same category as a well-established artificial anchor. The majority of those natural anchors are so weak that they have little (although detectable) influence on our experience. All the best, John