John, Thank you for your replies. You wrote: "The structure (form and sequence) you report seem fine. Here are a couple of possibilities: in your instructions to the client, do you indicate in steps 1, 2 and 4 that he was NOT to consciously select anything different (desired state), simply notice what occurred (self-calibration and with respect to the stimuli that define the context selected). Did you ensure that the client found the auditory and visual stimuli in step 4 that define the context selected? - your description of the integration phase would indicate that you did." I forgot to supply you the information you asked. 1. When I helped the client set up the spatial anchor I got him to stand on a piece of paper, close his eyes, and think in detail about all the contexts in his life where he wanted a new solution, rather than his problem. I told him to see them vividly, to imagine himself being there, hear any internal dialogue etc. It looked like a rather unplesant state by the look on his face and the slump of his body! 2. My client didn't know what was going to happen later. ie: we hadn't talked about anything to do with desired states. I helped him set up the spatial anchor. Then in the middle of the game, when I thought he was fully in the flow state, I pushed him back quickly on to the spatial anchor. The flow state had significant residue and so transferred easily onto the spatial anchor. I gave him no further intstructions other than to close his eyes and think about what he was thinking about before while he was on that spatial anchor, marked by a piece of paper. I assumed my verbals were unnecasary becuase the spatial anchor was so strong. Also, I notice the physiology one gets when collapsing anchors. It was a very strong collapsing, at least, from what I could percieve. I didn't test the integration after wards by asking him to think of the problem state. Rather, as I said, I immediately ended the appointment without comment. I will do my best to see him and find out more, Mitch