MIXED / CONTESTED
Positive blinded studies coexist with controlled null findings; the literature does not justify a settled conclusion.
Channelled Records · Claim Queue · CQ-003 · v0.1.0
CQ-003
Unknown-source information.
Testable—not settled.
Can a channelled or mediumistic session produce specific information unavailable through ordinary means? This profile evaluates the information claim. It does not assume that a deceased person, guide, field or other entity supplied it.
MIXED / CONTESTED. Above-chance findings and material null results both exist. Replication independence and mechanism remain insufficiently resolved.
Claim-level evidence profile
Separate the result
from its explanation.
SUPPORTED WITH LIMITS
Several studies report target readings scoring above decoys under multi-level blinding.
MATERIAL COUNTER-EVIDENCE
Controlled studies have also found no target–control difference and no support for genuine mediumistic ability.
LIMITED
Positive studies span more than one paper but include overlapping authors, selected mediums and connected research networks.
INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE
Even an anomalous score would not by itself distinguish survival, telepathy, clairvoyance, methodological artefact or another explanation.
Evidence and counter-evidence
Positive, null
and dependent results.
2005 · O’Keeffe & Wiseman
Controlled tests of professional mediums did not support genuine mediumistic ability; the authors discuss competing interpretations and methodological limits.
NULL / COUNTER-EVIDENCE ↗2007 · Beischel & Schwartz
A small triple-blind study with eight mediums reported higher ratings for intended than control readings; it could not distinguish survival from other paranormal hypotheses.
POSITIVE · SMALL STUDY ↗2015 · Beischel et al.
Twenty selected research mediums completed 86 readings; several blinded scoring outcomes favoured target readings, with outcome sample sizes varying by measure.
POSITIVE · REPLICATION CLAIM ↗2021 · Sarraf et al.
Meta-analysis of 14 papers and 18 experiments reported an aggregate effect above chance. Dependence among studies, selection and methodological heterogeneity remain important review questions.
POSITIVE META-ANALYSIS · LIMITS ↗2022 · Freire et al.
Eight mediums produced 18 psychographic sessions for 94 sitters. Target letters did not score differently from five controls under strict conditions.
NULL · CONTROLLED WRITING ↗2022 · Tressoldi et al.
Nine mediums produced 38 paired readings in a triple-blind protocol; 65.8% of intended readings were selected against a 50% chance benchmark.
POSITIVE · TRIPLE-BLIND ↗2025 · Tressoldi et al.
A study of 100 readings from 28 self-claimant mediums reported 65% correct identification and target–control differences on its stated indices.
POSITIVE · LARGER SAMPLE ↗Minimum discriminating protocol
Make leakage difficult.
Make misses visible.
PREREGISTER
Freeze hypotheses, target pool, exclusions, outcomes, scoring and analysis before any session.
ISOLATE INFORMATION
No sitter contact; neutral proxy; secure targets; record every cue available to medium, interviewer, transcriber and rater.
SCORE BLINDLY
Use multiple matched decoys, item-level specificity rules and independent raters as well as sitter judgements.
COUNT EVERYTHING
Publish all sessions, misses, exclusions, deviations and failed replications—not only striking statements.
REPLICATE ADVERSARIALLY
Use independent teams with different prior beliefs, shared protocols and auditable data.
Relationship to BQ001
Anomalous information
would not equal survival.
CQ-003 can test whether information appears above chance under controls. If it did, further experiments would still need to discriminate among survival, living-agent psi, unknown ordinary leakage, statistical artefact and other models.