A Protocol Judge Available 24/7
Judging
Every submitted session is scored by an independent judge within about a minute, on the standard SRI 1–7 scale, under proper protocol: the judge evaluates your sketch and notes against the candidate targets, and nothing else. The judge is a state-of-the-art commercial multimodal model, given the complete grounding an expert SRI-protocol judge carries — the scale, the discipline about what counts as correspondence, and the obligation to score what was recorded rather than what might have been meant. Historically, judging was the role that made remote viewing a team sport: a qualified human, hours or days later, schedules permitting. Here it is on demand, at three in the morning, every time.
On the perennial argument about blindness: this is among the most directly tested questions in the government-era record, and the primary sources are collected in The Star Gate Archives, Volume 2: Remote Viewing 1985–1995 (May and Marwaha, eds., McFarland, 2018). Receivers in those experiments worked blind to target choice and condition as a matter of protocol, and the dependencies people worry about kept failing to appear. Sender versus no sender: "a sender is not a requirement" — the program's own conclusion in Lantz, Luke and May, Target and Sender Dependencies in Anomalous Cognition Experiments, Journal of Parapsychology 58, 285–302, reprinted in the Archives and declassified in the CIA reading room. Feedback, manipulated from vivid full-motion review all the way down to below the threshold of conscious visual recognition: no dependence — May and Lantz's FY-1987 series as summarized by Utts in the Archives, and May, Lantz and Piantanida, Feedback Considerations in Anomalous Cognition Experiments, Journal of Parapsychology 60, full text in the CIA reading room. A broad methodological review is openly available — Marwaha and May, Rethinking Extrasensory Perception, SAGE Open 2015. The pattern across all of it: performance is robust to the variables people worry about most.
The archives speak just as directly to the opposite arrangement — the viewer choosing among target possibilities they already know, the protocol the field calls forced choice. A dedicated SRI program (May and Trask, Forced-Choice Remote Viewing, 1988 — declassified in the CIA reading room, reprinted in the same Archives volume) confirmed what forced-choice work had shown since the Rhine era: the phenomenon survives — thousands of binary trials still beat chance, at odds beyond ten thousand to one for the year — but the effect collapses to a fraction of free-response performance, and the report names the mechanism: once the viewer knows the candidates, perception is buried under "massive overlay" from memory and expectation. That finding is built into this system's shape. You sketch free-response, against nothing but a coordinate. The candidate targets do not exist for your session until your sketch is submitted. And the comparison against candidates — the one step the research shows human viewers doing worst — is precisely the step we hand to the independent judge.
Many practitioners still have strong feelings here, and it costs nothing to honour them — because our answer is stricter than the worry. Judging on this system is independent by default, always. Self-judging exists as an option only if you genuinely want it, or as a fallback in the rare case the judge is unreachable. You never have to trust your own optimism, and you never wait for a human.
