As I tend to focus on logical and relational thinking, I had an idea of what I want to call the de-AOL method. But first, if you want to know what I mean by relational thinking, have a look at Mark Passio's explanation here:

➡️ https://freiemenschen.org/video/Mark-Passio_Relational-Thinking.mp4

So, what do I mean by de-AOL? Well, an AOL is an Analytical OverLay, which is just a fancy word for "interpretation" of the raw data that comes while remote viewing. In short, the brain wants to attach learned patterns from memory to the perceived data, or in other words: The brain wants to apply known relations in order to describe the reality it faces.

For example, if you remote view a certain tourist site, your brain already knows the concept of what a tourist site is, therefore providing you all the relations you have stored in memory, and with it, stored pictures of tourist sites you already know. This can lead to getting an image of the Eiffel Tower, for instance, while the target is not the Eiffel Tower, but the Chinese Wall.

Good remote viewers try to avoid that AOLs adulterate the data by identifying them as AOLs, putting them in another category than the raw data, and ignore that category altogether. I don't want to say that this is the wrong approach, but I got the idea that the AOLs can be more useful than we think. Remember, the brain wants to help you with the relations you already know.

So, let's get more specific. In the recent mysteries project, the Buddha, the first focus was the most enlightened moment in Buddhas life. Intysam saw him meditating, going inwards, discovering a higher being that looked like a bright sun. Aziz on the other side saw him standing on a hill or staircase, like a leader giving a speech.

Now, let's get back to relational thinking: What do both depictions have in common? This is what I mean by de-AOL: Take the depiction and break it down into its principles. Intysam's sun is emitting light. The leader Aziz saw was standing in the spotlight, so to speak. Both are in a higher or uplifted position in relation to where "normal people" are. But both depictions still are AOLs, because they are different when it comes to details.

Intysam's AOL was the sun, as her brain was not able to find a better picture to come close to that sheer power she witnessed. Interestingly, Aziz saw a political leader that reminded him of Julius Caesar, because of his different (male?) view on what power is.

The brain has no other choice than to provide the best fitting pictures that match the concepts. But it's not merely an AOL that has to be tossed aside, as the reality of the concept behind the picture is important. In case of the term enlightened, it's just that the reality of the vast power of the higher self has been perceived in different ways.

So, here's a suggestion how to de-AOL:

1. If depictions from different remote viewers mismatch, break them down to their principles.
2. Compare the principles. Same principles could mean same target.
3. Try to rebuild the target from the principles.

If you are able to rebuild the target from the principles, the remote viewer is on target, but that could also mean that the target is too low in resolution for the remote viewer to get a clearer picture. Understanding the principles behind what is seen can help to reduce confusion when mismatching data occurs, and it also can help to get better at formulating the targets.

In case of the Buddha project, asking for the "most enlightened" moment was somehow misleading, involving stronger AOLs as the remote viewers tried to describe what they saw. But it's nonetheless informative regarding the nature of the ISBE and the higher self.

I'd like to see more of that. Maybe Farsight could revisit Lucifer, looking at him from the angle of the dark and light principles as described by Mark Passio in the linked video. Maybe the person that has been seen in the Lucifer project is just an AOL, as there is no single Lucifer person in history?

If I keep getting a repeating AOL, I will move to S5 and probe with the question "How does this remind me of the target?" or similar.

As an example of how it went, I kept getting Eiffel Tower as an AOL, and when I probed it I got 'landmark, famous, people visit, important...". Actual target was Great Wall of China.

So, I'm not incorporating this idea as a standard S5 (not liking some of the others I've seen).

"As an example of how it went, I kept getting Eiffel Tower as an AOL, [...] Actual target was Great Wall of China."

When I think about this, I keep getting to the point that my knowledge about how a target actually works is not sufficient. I mean, it's hidden from the viewer, but the viewer is able to get some information about it. Courtney mentioned that he is cleaning his desk before formulating a target, like a ritual for getting a clear mind. But why is that important?

To me, it seems like when the viewer accesses the target, it's actually the mind of the one who formulated the target at that point in time that is accessed, similar to a DMP. So, there must also be emotions involved.

"... and when I probed it I got 'landmark, famous, people visit, important..."

So here's a theory: As a landmark, the Great Wall of China is more important to the one who formulated the target than the Eiffel Tower, while for you, it's the other way around. This is comparable to Aziz getting Julies Caesar instead of the shining sun Intysam saw, because they have different ideas about what power is. But where does the idea of power come from? Why is it attached to the "enlightened moment"?

And this is where I see Courtney, while formulating the target, incorporating that bias into the target. The enlightened state must be a powerful state, which basically is a bias, but as far as I'm concerned, is not false. It just means that the viewers will focus on that aspect more, getting specific personal AOLs attached to that bias.

I'm missing a somehow structured method of feedback from the viewers to the one who formulated the target, based on what I call "de-AOL" to analyze the target, identify the biases, and learn from that to get better at seeing the truth. This could be done as part of the target reveal. Yeme already tends to do that by asking good questions.

I’m of the opinion that whenever a RVr says “I deduct X”, his session becomes tainted.
Intysam’s session on the Buddha, for instance, must be discarded if you’re really serious. It could be entirely imaginary, out of her own beliefs about the subject.
There’s a reason why they use words and terms like “nss” instead of aircraft or uap, “land/water interface” instead of beach or shore, “structure” instead of house or warehouse or building…
In the midst of it all, it really hurts credibility when they say “Deducting” this or that is going against it all.
It takes hardwork to leave your ego out.

well im no remote viewer but im starting to practice and one of the things i find necessary for the mind not become tainted is exactly the procedure of classifying a a visual that the conscious mind is trying to get hold on as a deduction, that process in of itself is like in PNL, you are putting a key/program/belief system into the conscious mind so the conscious mind perceives as something to put aside while we write down on the paper, the conscious mind then knows by practice that needs to give room for the sub conscious mind to receive.
So in that matter to discard Intysam's session is to discard years of remote viewing done by her even with verifiable targets and verifiable deductions from her. So for me i don't think that's a good strategy
"It takes hardwork to leave your ego out."
Probably not ego, but more of wanting to improve even further, which leads to constantly checking out if her deductions or conscious mind is becoming more aligned with your sub conscious mind, and therefore leading to a better remote viewing.
And because of it, for me, i think her session was really great and it definitely impact her in a good way.

I don't think that any remote viewing session should be discarded. Have a look at my replies to Shiningbrow and Arnoldo above.

"It takes hardwork to leave your ego out."

Intuition tells me that you can see the difference between what you want to be true and what actually is true if you're willing to accept that you ego is not the predominant force.

The question is: Does that also have to be the case for the tasker, or can a good remote viewer overcome the biases of the tasker? And what about biases regarding the relationship between tasker and viewer? I mean, what effects does it have when the viewer wants to be correct in the sense of matching what the tasker wants him/her to see?

It's all about honesty and humility/humbleness.

"I mean, what effects does it have when the viewer wants to be correct in the sense of matching what the tasker wants him/her to see?"
I don't know if im understanding your line of thinking!
Are you talking about the target reveal where they change information, if so.. we must also take into consideration that if the viewer is still in the "zone" processing what he/she experienced.. or if it's not after the session then he/she has to connect again with that session, because apparently one of the things that most RViewers talk about is that they don't even remember "sometimes" what happened, i've heard Daz talk about this also.
If it is in the session, then this narrative "matching what the tasker wants him/her to see?" i don't see how it could be possible since they are doing the session in blind conditions, also the process of the Ego structure is embedded within the conscious mind, the analytical structure of the mind, meaning it will reflect back your belief systems regardless of it's polarity, and if one's not in alignment with perceiving the truth from it's higher mind or self, hence practicing the method that will help with time to open that door, then the ego/concious mind will take it's place but at the same time what im understanding with the practices is that the rv method in of itself is already created to avoid those traps from the mind, hence the low level vocabulary which im also seeing it is aligned with the frequency of everything that's part of the target, meaning, it devoids the high level language of the conscious mind that is attached with the belief systems the construct the ego structure, the conscious mind is trying what it can to debunk the situation, but the method allows us to see through the feeling or the the vibrational signature of the structure or object or anything else we are connecting to and then while the data is building up that will also allow the conscious mind to start to see what it is receiving, hence visual perception and also why we make the questions "what a im feeling here" that then will allow me to go deep into feeling more of what im perceiving so i can create a more clear picture through the data i'm collecting. This is one of the reasons also we meditate and meditate through that mantra.
So i don't know if that was the case with Intysam, without knowing i'll just reflect my own belief system in the matter and making assumptions about her, im trying not to go there as a personal path.
Also that mantra i mentioned it, what im seeing is that the more you say it in the meditation the more is likely to be programmed into the sub-concious mind, into your DNA, and that mantra is all about detachment, about detaching myself consciously/belief systems from the target, hence "... I direct my attention to a chosen point of existence. I observe what is there. I study it carefully. I record what I find."