This is something that's always bothered me too, the way a list of basic descriptors can fit almost anything.
The basic question is how do we get from "down analyzing" - as Joe suggests - to a place where we are sketching near-exact replicas of the target - as Joe does. Right?
I think both Daz and Scott hit on the answer to some degree. And I believe you've all mentioned the pitfall we have to watch for when we attempt to do the reverse of down-analysis - AOLS.
Personally, my remote viewing seems a lot like yours, Scott. I get the same sort of incorrect visuals with exactly correct elements - like the parachute image you got for the windmill target.
I recently came across an old session of mine stuck in the pages of Dean Radin's "Conscious Universe". The target, stapled to the pages of my session transcript, was a painting of Saturn. But I sketched all kinds of Saturn-like images instead of the real thing. I didn't even get any perceptions of space or planets or anything like that.
First was a victorian-style house with a railing that went all the way around the roof. The railing was in a strange place, sitting out on top of the shingles and encircling the center peak of the house. Next, I sketched a round bench in a park with a hedge directly behind it that also made a rough circle. In the center of the circles made by the hedge and the bench was a round table.
Especially in the second sketch, I had all the elements of the planet Saturn along with its rings but my mind actually GAVE me incorrect images. Why? This mental phenomenon has always bothered me. Why do I get plain, exacting (if somewhat quick and fleeting) images of objects, structures, and scenes that are only "like" the target in some way. I mean, if I'm going to get a good visual, why doesn't my subconscious give me the RIGHT visual? Why should it only approximate the target in various ways?
I wish I could figure out the reason the mind does this. I have an intuition that this one problem, if solved, would really open up remote viewing for spectacular results.
As it is, we have to down-analyze each complex perception. In my example above, I should have realized that several of my visual perceptions had these things in common: round, circles within circles, a solid object within those circles, etc. But think about this: both the railing on the roof and the bench were white - Saturn is not white! If I had focused on that I would have been noting totally incorrect things (as it was, I missed the target pretty badly anyway, lol).
Okay, sorry about that bit of digression. Back to the topic:
" I don't know if there's such a thing as consciously 'up analyzing' during a session for me."
"I might perceive...in several different contexts. My conjecture is that at some point, context probably starts to arise subconsciously, within which to place the low context data."
What I really keyed on in that was the word "consciously". Because I think the process of down-analyzing might serve two purposes: (1). (the more obvious purpose) to break down what are most likely incorrect AOLS into what are most likely correct general and vague bits of data, and (2). (what is not so obvious) by breaking down the complex perceptions into their more basic components, we are spending time on-target consciously AND SUBCONSCIOUSLY. The result might be that, at some point, as you said Scott, context starts to arise. We start to sort of "home in" on the target more and more.
This might be thought of as almost a form of dowsing, in which the conscious mind is kept busy - but it is kept busy with the target (not just allowed to meander aimlessly) while, the whole time, the subconscious is still in the background working on the problem.
So Eric, in answer to your question, I think Scott is on the right track in that it tends to happen subconsciously. The biggest problem for me is keeping my conscious mind from moving into a guessing mode or even taking over too much of the process. It's almost like you don't want to allow your conscious mind to start trying to solve the overall problem of what the target is. Instead, it must be kept busy working on small - but related - problems such as breaking down complex perceptions. In this way, we stay focused both consciously and subconsciously while, at the same time, keeping the conscious mind out of the way.
I'd say the only sort of SAFE up-analyzing we could do would be to toss out the broken down simple data bits and only keep the ones that applied to all of our compex percpetions. If the basic data bits aren't in at least two of our complex visuals, etc., then throw them away, disregard them. That would at least be a possible way of getting rid of wrong information.
But it doesn't get us any closer to achieving a detailed, extremely correct result.
It's frustrating because, as Scott mentioned, I'll sometimes get a flash that IS the target. My result then is a sketch that looks like one of Joe's. But that only happens maybe one or two out of every hundred - if that. The frustrating part is that these kinds of sessions shows us what is possible and what we should, hypothetically, be able to achieve every time. But even with those direct-hit sessions, sometimes I'll have other information that's totally incorrect right there on the same page. Very frustrating.
I like Daz's use of mind-mapping - which I don't know much about, I've only read about it a little online. It seems to serve the same purpose I described above, of allowing the conscious to stay busy while the sub is still working on the problem.
Lately, I've noticed a certain state of mind that seems to always be present when I have my best sessions. It's a sort of muted enthusiasm, an anticipation. It's almost exactly like the creative urge I get when I want to sketch or write or write music. I've tried - with only a little success - to "force" this state of mind when it's not naturally present. I do this by reading inspiring literature or praying or actually sitting down and playing the guitar or something for awhile.
I'm aiming for those incredible sessions time after time. I know I'll probably never reach it but if I can just get closer, I'll be happy.
I'm interested in hearing your guys' ideas on this and what we're already talking about. I always feel as if there's a whole new level of RVing just around the bend, if we can only figure out these sorts of problems.