J.B.,

I believe you have totally missed the point regarding scientific control and what constitutes it in a given instance.  It should not be confused with other issues, nor should its absence in one paradigm be confused with the possibility of its isolated absence in the face of operator error in the case of a discipline which in fact normally reflects principles of scientific control.  With regard to the first--although it is proper and admirable that polygraph examiners calibrate their instruments, there is little question that electrons do flow and pressure gauges can accurately measure pressures in most instances.  Nor is there any serious question that ambulatory individuals who travel to and report for polygraph examinations have at least minimally functioning autonomic systems.  The ANS is required on a daily basis for individual life function and its function as displayed in polygraph examinations is trivial relative to its various life sustaining functions.  And if autonomic function and responsivity were in question, the re-named so-called "acquaintance test" is no serious measure of it, but merely a nomenclature evolution of the parlor game and fraudulent exercise we have all come to know as a "stim test."  To suggest that this is anything more should be embarrassing to one who understands anything about autonomic physiology.  As has been pointed out recently by others, the acquaintance test is actually the first opportunity for the examinee to con the con-man examiner with countermeasure response to the chosen number and feigned amazement at the examiner's mystical deductive powers in pointing out said response(s)...

But on to meaningful scientific control and that which is lacking with control question test polygraphy...

That which will define scientific control in an analysis is the ability of the control to shed light on the various dependent measure recordings of the analyte in question.  In the case of the control question polygraph exam, the analyte in question is the relevant question subject matter; the dependent measures are those measures of physiology recorded, and the scientific control, in theory, is furnished by the control or comparison questions.  THIS IS WHERE THE HEART OF CONTROL LIES AND WHY IT IS COMPLETELY ABSENT IN PROBABLE LIE CONTROL QUESTION POLYGRAPHY.   In order for it to exist, we would need to know something about the emotional content or affect and the relational nature of this affect for chosen relevant and control question pairings within a given exam.  Although polygraphers have speculated about this, there is NO independent measure of this for a relevant/control pair for given examinee (guilty or innocent) on any given day.  This is not a function of isolated operator/examiner error that you correctly suggest could exist on any given day with any discipline, but is an every day condition and lack of control that exists with polygraphy.  If an innocent examinee is not more concerned with control/comparison questions than relevant questions (i.e. the emotional content/affect of controls is greater than for relevant questions) and this can not be demonstrated through the process, then any recording of physiological response (dependent variable) and any conclusions drawn are absolutely meaningless with a given exam.  This inability to verify theoretical constructs with a given relevant/control pairing for a given examinee is what makes control question test polygraphy without scientific control and without any ability to be meaningfully analyzed.  This situation does not exist with the forensic toxicological analysis that you either completely do not understand (hopefully) or intentionally misrepresent.  The chemical/physical relationship between deuterated-benzoylecgonine (control) and benzoylecgonine (urinary metabolite of cocaine and analyte of interest) is well understood for all of the environments involved in analysis, i.e., tissue, organic and aqueous media, chromatographic packing materials, mass spec source, analyzer, etc.  Because of this one can determine whether an experiment worked and what qualitative and quantitative conclusions can be meaningfully deduced with any dependent variable measurements obtained.  To compare control question test polygraphy to this is, again, a quite embarrassing comparison.  Again, the fact that operator error can compromise the validity of quality control or operational practice with any given toxicological analysis neither makes this (forensic toxicology) uncontrolled under normal circumstances nor vicariously makes control question test polygraphy more of a scientifically controlled practice through any contrived and envious comparisons.  It most assuredly does not.  WE ARE LEFT WITH WHAT WE BEGAN WITH---PROBABLE LIE CONTROL QUESTION TEST (CQT) POLYGRAPHY DOES NOT IN ANY WAY EMBODY PRINCIPLES OF SCIENTIFIC CONTROL...