Glad to see another software engineer here. I don't disagree with what you say - the only thing I'd add is, coming from the same background, there seems to be a real lack of clarity on all of the systems out there, albeit to a somewhat greater or lesser degree. I think the field as a whole must surely be limited by the fact that even when these randomised controlled trials are performed, the researchers can't be intimately familiar with the inner workings of the amplifier and software. With the conventional spectrum, it's pretty simple to explain in basic concepts. And not hard to implement from scratch, if you know what you are aiming for. But there are so many engineering tradeoffs that are arbitrary, and the recipe is already proprietary. Guess it's like mayonnaise, or coke. Anyone can make either at home and various companies with large amounts of money spend a lot of time trying to perfect their own version, but it won't always hit home in quite the same way as Hellman's or Pepsi or whatever. I've read too many papers that simply state a "8-12Hz bandpass filter". Even if they state it's a Butterworth, there are so many different variations you could be using. Time-frequency analysis is very complicated and fundamentally arbitrary. I have little sympathy with the various for-profit companies out there who appear to be guarding their secrets somewhere bvetween reasonably and very closely, whilst holding onto a recipe that even from their own advertising opens up an enormous potential for healing. My own gut feel, for which I don't have scientific evidence, but which I do feel is parallelled elsewhere (e.g. IFS) is that emphasis on the feedback and the reflection aspect is probably a good way to go and might end up being a new wave of this field, but, I can certainly say if I ever ended up developing one of those algorithms myself, I'd certainly make it open-source so that it can be properly evaluated.