A rule has showed up. Never process a no-game condition, only a game condition.

No-Game conditions: know, opponent has, arrivals, solutions, namelessness, pan determinism, friendship, win, lose, effect on self, no effect others.

Game conditions — to be processed: problems, not-know, attention, can’t have (opponent), have (self), self-determinism, survival, no effect on self, effect on others, identities.

Example: thoughts that would have no effect on you, thoughts that would have effect on (father). No reverse.

This accounts for randomity in process application.

I felt clever last week and worked this out. And it works! Valences are:

1. Own valence (identity)
1. Body valence (human identity)
2. Exchanged valence (direct assumption of another valence)
3. Attention valence (valence assumed to get attention from another)
4. Synthetic valence (valence described to pc and assumed)

On I — no change desired. On 2 body run as opponent. On 3 exact valence run as problem and can’t have. On 4 valence of B assumed to get attention from A, remedy have and problem on A. On 5 run can’t have and problems on person (or book or film) who told pc.

Them’s how we’ve missed on some profiles which are valence pictures. He’s in Mother’s valence but separation on Mother didn’t work. Why? Maybe he was in an attention valence requiring separation from father or in a synthetic as described by grandma. Voila —