Hi, John and all potential readers Thank you for your comments. I found myself in full agreement with them. I take them as a gift to improve the precision of my writing. I also found that this lack of precision (may be not a cause-effect) is an opportunity to learn from responses to questions which I had not ask for (or even imagined). More that if you outline a point it must be a key one from a co-creator of NLP, therefore a key point and a underlying principle of NLP. (see item 1 for example) 1) You wrote “There is no point to limiting the application to a problem state …” - This was already obvious for me and covert behind the quotations marks I’ve put previously around “problem” (present state might be a better terminology), I did not felt previously urged to emphasize on that, - My aim in using NC is to go beyond classic NLP in expanding my capabilities (and limits : I don’t fit with the definition of “Warrior” (my translation of the French edition) of Castaneda but that not a “problem” for me) and those of my close relationships (with ethical considerations of course). Some comments about the second point : 10 years after my NLP practitioner training, if I was still thinking in terms of “PROBLEMS”, I hope I would be aware of that : - Either I do not had wanted to make changes in my life, - Or my strategy is to much “Away from” (BTW you never mention metaprograms, John ?), - Or NLP doesn’t work or not as fast as expected or I’ve found no NLP well-trained guy to work with and exchange ideas , - Or that I have not been well-taught or with models with potentially negative aftermaths - … Thanks to WITW and this forum, I am much aware of some epistemological issues about some models (for example Neurological level), i.e. faith and dependency to models (or philosophies in general),. I do not know if the “Neurological level model” can created “Mission” by itself, but I think it fits perfectly well with the beliefs (expectations) of a large fraction of mankind. Might be an acute problem ? By the way the question of “mission” seems to be wild taught across the NLP community. I guess that the positive intention behind is :“to not only teach tools but also to help people find a direction (or ethical values) to apply their tools”. To finish with this sensitive area, I am more aware of “something” but finding solutions and communicating them well is at another level of thinking than my present capabilities. 2) You wrote “there is no collapsing at step 4 only the connection to context” and “ There are few aspects that overlap with SWISH” What I’ve tried to say was that with NC, there is no “competition” between the 2 states (to solve the problem or to improve the present state) but rather a switch when the context is met (And I see a SWISH as a SWITCH when the trigger is met, of course that is a GREAT short-cut ! and my point of view can … “ not be the truth”). After reading Mitch 1st posting,negative feelings related to the problem, even that an anchor to a what Mitch has called “, he dramatically and powerfully went into the problem state, which was a very powerful state” could interfer with the process of NC. That why It came into my mind to use two physical locations (investigations/context). I think now that the assumption of interference was wrong. My though was that there is no need for an thorough investigation of the problem state nor anchoring the K(--) because it does not have any useful role in NC. I add now :  it is by-passed. This seems in agreement with your comment : “I appreciate your intention but personally my calibration that the player has selected the context is more than adequate as an investigation of the problem state". After your first answer (John) to Mitch posting, I’ve look back to WITW p240 step 2, but the sentence : “This is an opportunity for the coach to calibrate your present state response to the context in question” was even more confusing for me (Even if I can imagine, now, that “opportunity might means something like “optional secondary gain” or at least “a thorough investigation is not mandatory”). The previous confusing means : I was not sure of the weight to give to the calibration of the present state To summarize MY (not to take for granted for anybody) understandings of NC after your additional comments : - There is no need for a thorough investigation of the problem state, - Useful anchors are related to the context, - The problem is not solve by collapsing the two states but rather a switch, toward the best available choice at the unconscious level, occurs when the context is met, - If the context is well anchored and the unconscious “ready to make a choice” the problem state can not interfere because it is by-passed by the switch. My own definition of NC : “NC relies on getting the unconscious available to a given context so that it can make the most appropriate available to it. The unconscious is elicited (stimulated) through game playing and the context accessed by spatial anchors.” That all, all the best JPG