Well, like ChrisPennsylvania who just posted his session a few days back, I also have studied Chinese so I knew that the character was a dragon. I AOLed it and several aspects about dragons several times, but it looks like it still crept in there throughout the session.

Finally, on s4[X], after probing EIs for a while, I felt strongly that whatever my [x] was, that it was not actually a lifeform, that it was actually symbolic. Hence I wrote down "symbol" in the AOL/S column, and I am wondering if this is appropriate to do?

The only other thing I know I did poorly in was in my S4[A], when I just totally stopped receiving any information and thus did not fill up the paper to the 2/3rds mark.

Anyhow, any comments or criticisms, I will gladly appreciate. Thanks to anyone in advance.

Only a nuance to report here.

There is a noticeable difference in your S3[A] sketch as it appears in [A] than as it appears in the S.T. In the [A] it appears much more directional, while in the S.T. you have redrawn it to look much more chaotic (i.e. not exactly as down in the [A].

As most analysis is done at the S.T. an incorrect conclusion could be drawn from that change. I am not saying that has happened here because there was no summary, but say you were viewing a defect in the design of an airfoil.

Your S3[A] would seem to indicate a mostly laminar flow across the surface with only minor eddying, while your S.T. would seem to indicate non-linear turbulence and streamline separation from the airfoil resulting in a catastrophic loss of lift.

Does that make sense?

Rigor >> Excellence

Ah, I see the point you are trying to make. I guess I never really bothered to be as literal and exact in transferring over my stage 3 aspects before, since I had gotten used to the fast pace of everything. Being messy in general just seemed to be a part of that for me. Nevertheless, I shall be more mindful of that seeing the potential for corruption in the data in the example that you have kindly pointed out.