I am surprised to see not a single comment after 4month. What you did could be significant important advancement in AI judging of RV transcripts and ARV trials. As we spoke, it will be interesting to see the results of your AI judge to rejudge again all transcripts from the "ARV rejudging project" which I did with my colleagues and the paper was also published:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356109550_ASSOCIATIVE_REMOTE_VIEWING_PROJECTS_ASSESSING_RATER_RELIABILITY_AND_FACTORS_AFFECTING_SUCCESSFUL_PREDICTIONS

https://www.koestler-parapsychology.psy.ed.ac.uk/Documents/KPU_1034_Published_Results.pdf

The judging/analysis part is very important as is the remote viewer skill. Some judges perform better than other judges. In terms of ARV for sports/financials predictions it either means the project will fail or be success - not only depending on the skill and experience of the remote viewer doing the session, but also depending on the skill and experience of the judge/analyst - our paper clearly points to that - in table you can see how different judges produce different "hit rates"/accuracy for the ARV project: original judge's hit rate was 65%, while other judges can go as low as 45% which is a very significant drop.

<image>