From all my reading about the polygraphing procedure, I have come up with the following conclusion.  The outcome is purely subjective.  If the polygrapher feels you have made adequate, and somewhat truthful admissions to CERTAIN questions of which  no- one will truly know, except for the polygrapher himself.  The way I see it is if an applicant vehemently denies every relevant, and ultimately all controls, he will fail, but its a CATCH 22,  if on the same token that same applicant admits to some certain questions, and the polygrapher truly believes him, although the polygrpaher will not let you know he believes you, you MAY pass.  If the polygrapher truly feels you have made credible admissions, ie.  something more powerful then, gee. I took some pens home from work, lets face it if I were a polyprapher and an applicant told me that, I'd automatically assume hes covering up a more larger related crime.  but If one were to say well when I was 16, I did a real stupid thing, I stole some gum from my place of work, I was never caught but realized my wrong and never did it again.  If I had to make a decision hypothetically of these two incidents I would be more apt. to pass the applicant who stole the gum soley because he seems more believable, the other applicant who took the pens obviously has something more serious to hide or he wouldn't admit to anything at all, but if thats the case then he'd fail anyways because the polygrapher assumes most people have taken something from a former employee. just my thoughts...

Most of what has been written on this sight and in "The Lie Behind The Lie Detector" would caution against making "reasonable" admissions beyond the most minor childhood transgressions. Some Law enforcement agencies have policies that operate according to their own "logic."  I recently heard(albeit secondhand) of a candidate who claims she was denied employment because she admitted to having stolen something in the six grade - this violated a zero-tolerance integrity policy.