Mitch Amazing, the avalanche of nonsense your well-intended report triggered. Thank you for adding the material contained in your last posting. I did detect one significant difference in this material between an "ideal" application of the new code format and what you reported. It may or may not be the source of the difference we are exploring. You wrote, "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" The difference is one of the key points that distinguishes new code from classic code. In the classic code, this invitation for the client to think/access/imagine... about what s/he wants is standard. In the new code, the client is expressly prohibited from this. Instead, in the new code, the responsibility for selecting the new state, behavior, perceptions, resources (whichever nominalization is preferred by the agent of change and the client) is re-assigned to the unconscious. This ensures that the change is generative (in the sense that the high-performance state that is achieved during the game adapts itself freshly at each new actual encounter (entry into the context selected or similar contexts). Further this implies that the client is in a know-nothing state with respect to the difference s/he will experience when s/he next enters the selected context. The larger point is that of the two choices - conscious process and unconscious process - the unconscious, when properly framed and organized, is far more capable of selecting effective responses in the context chosen at the time of entry than the coscious mind is - especially since such a selection occurs outside the context in a more abstract form. ALl this is argued at length in Whispering. If you allow the conscious mind to select as you said what the client wants - a new solution - than you are insisting that the conscious mind make such a choice - this is counter to the patterning in the new code although ubiquitous in the classic code. Such an insistance does sometimes lead to conflicts between conscious and unconscious process - this may well have been what you witnessed and interpreted as the signs of integration that you described. Mitch, the above commentary certainly describes a significant difference between what we proposed for the new code and what you actually did. Whether it accounts for the result is undetermined until you run the pattern as proposed. I am most interested in any further reports should you succeed in tracking the client down and running the exercise with the differences described in this and the previous posting. All the best, John