Well, now I know that the best way to shut down conversation on IAPCT Discouse; just present some actual data 
But I’ve got a couple moments now so I’ll try to quickly explain what I think are the clinical implications of the Dead Zone.
First a reminder: The Dead Zone is determined by the distance between the references for the value a commonly controlled variable (CCV). Disturbances that don’t move the CCV outside the range of the Dead Zone will not be resisted. So the appearance is that the systems in conflict have lost control of the CCV. When the systems are in a single indiividual this is seen as neurosis.
If, however, disturbances to the CCV cause it to go outside the range of the Dead Zon will be resisted, the amount of resistance depending on how far out of the Dead Zone the CCV is moved. So when the amplitude of the disturbance is large enough, even when systems are in conflict will appear to be in control. When the systems are in a single indiividual this is seen as a person who is apprently “in control” when they are actually experiencing considerable pain (error).
The clinical implication of all this, it seems to me, is that there can be different degrees of conflict depending on the size of the Dead Zone; the larger the Dead Zone, the worse the conflict. With a large Dead Zone, most disturbances to the CCV will go unresisted. So the person in such a conflict feels “out of control”, is experiencing considerable error and will present as having a problem.
With a small Dead Zone, the same level of disturbance to the CCV will be actively resisted. So the person in this kind of conflict might not feel like things are particularly out of control but will be experiencing considerable error. Such a person might not even show up for help but if they do it would probably just present as a person who feel like things are just not feeling right.
Of course, there are other complexities involved. Conflicts are not always a problem, especially if one of the systems involved in the conflict has much lower gain (strength) than the other(s). Indeed, when I first got on CSGNet I discovered that when one of he systems involved in a conflict is very low gain, the performance of the opposing system can actually be improved relative to what it would be without the conflict! Bill Powers dubbed this discovery the “Marken Effect”. I apparently mentioned this last year in a discussion of “collective control”.
The Marken Effect was discovered in the context of interpersonal conflict but I see no reason to doubt that it could also occur in the contect of intrapersonal conflict. And now it will be possible to see how this effect might be influenced by the size of the Dead Zone in a conflict.
So it looks like the study of conflict might be a fruitful area for clinical psychological research.