A few quotes on the R/I "technque":

"The relevant/irrelevant technique has been determined by researchers to produce an unacceptably high number of 'false positive' errors (because even an innocent subject will recognize the significance of the relevant question and may react to it) and has generally been discarded in favor of other techniques that have been shown to have a higher degree of reliability."
-- U.S. District Court, Southern District of Georgia, U.S. vs. Gilliard.  


"The relevant/irrelevant technique has been conclusively shown to be an invalid technique in published scientific research...the relevant/irrelevant technique is known to produce a large number (80+%) of false positive errors (the truthful fail the test). A failed RI test should be given no weight for any purpose." [emphasis added]
-- Dr. Charles Honts

So, Dr. Barland, if your objective is simply to produce a "tough test to beat" with countermeasures, why not just get a six-sided die, and declare everyone who doesn't roll a 1 deceptive?  I challenge anyone to countermeasure the test, you can give it over and over, you save the taxpayers a hell of a lot of money, and the chances of a false positive are on par with those of the R/I "technique".

Skeptic