Hi Martin and John I think it is a very good question – how do we define a content model and that of a process model. Some further distinctions would be great to have. If I remember, I am sure there are some in WITW, but will have to have a look. So from memory this is my take on it. I will see what I can come up with, any other thoughts from others would be appreciated too. A content model I put into the category of not NLPxxx For instance Freud’s Ego, Id and Super-Ego, they are a reference to part’s that have been labelled, but exist in the realm of construct. In similarity to Transactional Analysis ‘Parent, Adult, Child’ They all exist as metaphors for describing a set of behaviours that have a function similar to that of XY and Z but are not XY and Z. Do they conform to the logical types / level’s / part whole relationship? Putting the superscript of NLPxxx is also a way of being able to punctuate the various aspects of NLP. I would not specifically TM it, but it could have the same functionality as a TM in relation to this: - If a D/base was set up, a team of peer reviewers, and a functional website or media for public dissemination of such material. This would provide a regulating function within which a model / pattern that had been created by X and then passed for review to said reviewees and then if passed or given the ‘official NLPxxx’ stamp would then be posted on the aforementioned media, for public view. With this stamp, it would help to regulate what is an NLP model, that is it had been subjected to some of the initial criteria suggested in WITW passed with the reviewers approval. This would then allow it to live its own life in the realm of NLPxxx. If however someone in a seminar in the north Atlantic cold wastes aboard an Oil rig and was then subjected to a model/application called NLPxxx,it would then be possible to follow an audit trail back to the site of origin. And if it had not been listed on the site, it is either misnamed, in which case a detail of the processes of the said application / pattern or whatever should be listed; or it is not NLPxxx but another model. This means that the NLPxxx would have an audit trail. It becomes self-regulating and self accountable. There would not be any confusion as to whether it was an NLP model or not, or a content model or not. The only question is, is people have to buy into the criteria as to what constitutes an NLP model or not. And according WITW part of this is in relation to, does it conform to a) set theory, logical levels, types and part whole relationships and b) design processes, that form a logical sequencing that have been laid out. Thoughts? ATB Robert