This is not an improvement over the existing desription of the Phenomena category. I point out the mistakes below:
That’s what conventional behavioral scientists do; they have described lots of observable phenomena of behavior (like power laws). But they have done it without understanding that what they call “behavior” is a process of control. So they have been describing “observable phenomena of behavior” that are often irrelevant to understanding how behavior works. I think you have to start any discussion of the phenomena of interest to PCT by noting that, from the PCT point of view, behavior IS control. Leaving that out is a significant mistake.
PCT views purposeful behavior as control and explains it as control of perception.
Number 3 is not the case.
Actually, once you have identified a CV you have identified the perception being controlled. Speculation about the kind of perception being controlled happens after one has already identified a possible CV but greater accuracy is desired. So a better way to say this would be: Discussion may include speculation about the precise nature of the CVs that have been identified and proposals for how to test those speculations.
I think this is being way to specific about what we would want to see in this category. I think what Powers wanted (and what could be accomplished by discussion in this category) was a database of observations of controlling – a database like the one in my spreadsheet that you mention below. Figuring out the hierarchical relationships between the CVs entered into the database (presumably based on some formal or informal testing) is a job for research of a kind that would be best described in the Research category.
I think it would be a good idea to point to that spreadsheet in the description of the Phenomena category. I’ll try to add something on it to my version of the description.