I just received several volumes of files pursuant to my Freedom of Information Act request, which I filed in January 1997.  Based on my review of those files, which amount to an all-out hatchet job, I have come to the conclusion that if the polygraph interrogator wants you to make admissions, you are going to have admissions attributed to you, no matter what you say or don't say.  Distortion or fabrication, take your pick.

In view of this, the best thing I can think of for now (this is my suggestion for the second edition of the book), is immediately after the polygraph, send a confirming letter to whatever agency polygraphed you, setting out your position clearly, clarifying any "misunderstandings" with the examiner, and reinforcing whatever points you made.  If you have made admissions, I would re-state those and frame them so that if and when the examiner inflates them, you have a contrary record.  It might also be a good idea to note any promises or "admissions" made by the examiner, so reviewing officials can see just who is doing the lying.   

If you "passed," you might want to leave well enough alone.

If anyone believes the above is not a good idea, I'd welcome any feedback.

No to both questions. Minor admissions to the control questions are not automatic grounds for failure. The danger in making admissions to any questions is that the polygrapher may spin them out of all proportion if he thinks he sees deception in your charts.

In The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, in the chapter on polygraph countermeasures, at p. 69 of the 1st edition (a 2nd edition is in progress) we mention that rule number one is to make no admissions. But this rule is not absolute, as we also note:
Quote:

Is it true if you make admissions to any control you have already failed?  What about the minor childhood theft? or the taking the pens/ pencils from work, if you admit to these you will fail?