:: Wow the ID debate looks pretty complex.  Definitely a good reference for helping to shape this article.  The particular gripe I have is that the article now says "on the assumption that those behaviours were responsible for their results."  That's not entirely accurate, but I understand why you wanted to say it that way, to frame it as a 'claim'.  In one instance their methodology included interviewing hundreds of people about their behaviors and mental processes when they got over a phobia, and then what made it into the phobia model were only those behaviors universally consistent among the majority of interviewees - idiosyncrasies were removed.  Then they tested by teaching the model to people, and if a person could get the same or similar results as the person or people it was modeled from, then it was said to be successful.  It was not simply based on assumption.  I suppose therein lies the claim - are these models actually as successful as they say they are?  If there are any studies confirming or refuting the efficacy of something such as, say, the phobia cure, then I suppose that could be referenced or included.  One other thing, let's get our tenses straight - that same sentence has past and present tenses mixed.  There are people who still practice NLP, and they still seek to observe naturally self-taught expertise.