Reproducibility and Re-evaluation function



Dear Friends and CoRe user

I publish one e-mail exchange that I had with John Cook about a topic that might be interesting for some of you.  However I can advice that you skip this post if you are very much concerend about reproducibility, order, structure, knowing why,where and how things are. As this is a autism tendency that this topic will probably reafirm.

Dear Kiran


I do understand what you are saying and agree with you when you say — “if you select some or all items from different evaluations and do a combined re-evaluation you are getting different values than in the individual original ones. This is that way as all results do not contain absolute values but relative ones to the first in every evaluation.”

But that is not what I am questioning here. I am not referring to Absolute values. The real issue here, is as you say, relative values as Everything is related to everything. What makes the Core outstanding is its ability to emphasize what is most resonant, that wonderful DLE information. To me relative context means that each original group keeps the same relationship with each other (with a slight change sometimes) even if they all are much lower in the final Reevaluation.

You (KIRAN) wrote: “Lets say you make a rank-list of the quality of restaurants in one town and then do the same for another 10 towns. If you then make a combined rank list of all 10 towns in one list of course what was maybe no 1 in one town maybe now at the very end of this list. This is what happens in the reevaluation of 5.0 which is different than in 4.5 as it compares all the evaluations again in their relative context and this was not possible least not without making a combined tray and moving a lot of resonances from previous evaluations”

I agree with you that if you compare the top restaurant (Resonance), with the top restaurants of other towns, then it could be high or low or anywhere in-between. Only one restaurant can be top and one has to be last. Certainly the top English restaurant will be low compared to the all others. But, using that analogy – We can evaluate many restaurants (resonances) from each of 5 American states. We then end up with A 5 star (100% CoRe resonance), 4 star (80%), 3 star (60%), 2 star (40%) and 1 star (20%) restaurant from each state. Now we compare and reevaluate all 25 restaurants together as one big group.

The (hypothetical) results: California 5 star, is top of the final, larger group of 5 states (25 restaurants), California 1 star is higher than Texas 5 star etc. But a 1 star cannot (Should not) become higher in the full list against others in the original group (state) i.e. a New York 2 star cannot end up higher than a New York 5 star. BUT a New York 2 star can end up higher than a Maine 5 star, however it seems in CoRe 5.0 this is what happens – A new York 2 star (low resonance) overtakes and becomes much higher than the New York 5 star restaurant. Their relationship should not change even when compared to other restaurants from other states.

In 4.5, when evaluating from a final custom remedy tray created with the top 2, 3, 4 or 5 resonances of each evaluation in a session, resonance/remedies remain in their relative relationship with each other. This does not happen in 5.0 after the final Reevaluation. This issue is not really noticeable if you only use the top (100%) Resonance from each evaluation. This is why CoRe users may not have noticed this.

Does what I am saying now make sense? I am not trying to be picky or difficult or left brained because I really love the CoRe. The Core creates its own standard by which we measure resonance. So we need standards sometimes. I am not using my standards and beliefs here, I am looking at this entirely from the CoRe’s functions. Everything about the new Core is amazing and professional, elegant, organized and powerful. The (final) Reevaluation function is a great and important option, but the results are not consistent within a session of evaluations. It doesn’t seem to be reproducible in the final evaluation.

I do want you to know how committed I am to Inergetix and the CoRe. I have spent many hours of everyday for the past 12 months working with the Core, reading all your writings, watching your videos, and creating hundreds of custom trays/programs. It has been the most exciting thing I have ever experienced in the healing world, which I have been involved with as a professional for 29 years. I am actually one of those rare right brained practitioners, I work intuitively with many modalities and I agree with you that what passes for holistic work is not, I have been talking and thinking about these issues for many years. You have opened greater understanding for me and I really appreciate that

Thank you


Kiran’s reply to John :

Dear John

what you write and how you write resonates very much with me and I appreciate your patience with all that you did. One thing you have to be aware of that the argument that you gave why the order of restaurants of one state should remain the same even in re-evaluation is not correct. You have to understand that in Re-evaluation we do not just take the previous evaluation results and normalize them mathematically to the top of all restaurants of all states but we do a fresh CoRe evaluation with all selected items.

If we would do only a mathematical re-normation you are correct the order of items within its own group should not change at all but as we do a new CoRe evaluation where we have a 20% variance the item order may change in re-evaluation (for example we had 3 items with 100, 80 and 70% in the first evaluation and on reevaluation the first can be now at worst 80% (100% – 20% variance) the second maybe 96 % (80 + 20% variance) and the third only 84% worst case in that with all we had a +/- 20 % variation as we specify on reevaluation, so certainly the order even within a group would change what was first 1,2,3 would then be 2,3,1)

re-producible3 300w" sizes="(max-width: 472px) 100vw, 472px" />

This is comparable with another inspector going out again to all the top restaurants in all states and then re-evaluating them in comparison and we certainly would also give him a +/- 20 % variance in his evaluation criteria compared to the person who did it before him,,,, so also on his list even restaurants within the same state will change position relative to each other.

One way to solve this in a very easy way would be not to do a CoRe re-evaluation but just a mathematical re-normalizing with the relative values and then the relative position would not change a bit…. but I wonder if this is aligned with the spirit of CoRe which wants to be a mirror of real life and not a mathematical extrapolation and in real life it is a common fact at least for all who are not crystallized in a static left brain mode that rank-lists changed on re-evaluation anything and this also within the previous groups because when seeing other restaurants in other states or even other countries one is seeing new criteria to judge what one did not see before ( this is why travelling is one of the greatest healers, as it provides enough DLE to rearrange ones informational world)

Of course comparing restaurants in USA even in different states …. one will not find much difference anyway but if you have been to Brazil you would not give a Ritz Carlton restaurant in New York 5 stars anymore but you would even possibly give a beautiful neighborhood restaurant in New York 5 stars because after experiencing Brazil you would value authenticity way higher then dead form what might have impressed you previously so much to give a Ritz Carlton a higher rating then a neighborhood restaurant. (mot of our diseases come from giving an inappropriate high value to certain informational object)

you see in the World of CoRe all gets more complex then math makes us believe


John’s reply :

Dear Kiran

Thank you for the attached documents, yes, I see they are reproducing well and yes it is clear that the big databases are showing up well and the ‘all programs’ evaluation is also showing great results.


I certainly would not like a re-normation of the results, because that is forcing the issue and as you say, not in the spirit of CoRe. I have seen the top three change places sometimes, as in your example, although many times the top resonance kept its position when compared to other resonances in the same group. I like your analogy of a new inspector Reevaluating in comparison. Things make much more sense now that I know that there can be up to a 20% variance. Using Core 4.5 a great deal, I always did a final custom evaluation (it took time) and it kept to a 10% variance mostly. I never once saw a very low resonance/remedy in the same group overtake the top one.

I normally don’t go into great detail and I try to see the bigger picture, but I do like to organize things and that is where I can get entangled. I could never begin to understand all that you put into the CoRe and all its products, but I do greatly appreciate you and them. I have been very inspired by your concept of DLE and experience it daily, it adds a whole new awareness and sense of personal power. It is very important to work with it when using the CoRe.

I am also really looking forward to all the other amazing innovations you are developing and creating especially with light and sound. I also hope to visit you in Brazil next year for the AIM training and enjoy good and authentic high DLE restaurants!


PS: Happy Lunar Eclipse tomorrow evening, it is a very and powerful special one and important to you as an ‘Aquarian’ Leo.


About Author

Inergetix, Inc. founder and chief scientist.

Comments are closed.