*The TOTE will also exit if, after many trials, its operation phase fails to have any significant effect on the outcome of the test, although not to the same behavior as it would have if it had passed the test.

"… the response of the effector (the output neuron) depends on the outcome of the test and is most conveniently conceived of as an effort to modify the outcome of the test. The action is initiated by an "incongruity" between the state of the organism and the state that is being tested for, and the action persists until the incongruity is removed. The general pattern of the reflex action, therefore, is to test the input energies against some criteria established in the organism, to respond if the result of the test is to show an incongruity, and to continue to respond until the incongruity vanishes, at which time the reflex is terminated. Thus there is "feedback" from the result of the action to the testing phase, and we are confronted by a recursive loop." (pp. 2526)

A simple example of a TOTE's test phase would be that of a threshold test. In this example the stimulus must be above or below a certain quantitative threshold value to satisfy the test for congruity before the TOTE will exit to the next step in the chain of behavior. If it is not, the organism will operate to increase or decrease either the stimulus or its own threshold level in order to pass the test. When you adjust the volume dial on your radio or stereo, you are performing a TOTE of this type. As you turn the knob, you continually test the sound volume by listening to it. If the volume is too low, you operate by turning the knob clockwise. If you overshoot and the volume becomes too loud, you operate by turning the knob counterclockwise to reduce the intensity of the sound. When you have adjusted the amplifier to the appropriate volume, you exit from the "volume–adjusting" TOTE and settle into your comfortable armchair to continue reading.

We can illustrate this example of the TOTE process in the following way:

The three–step process we described earlier as the most general description of NLP, of applying resources to a present state of behavior in order to achieve a new outcome state, may also be represented as another example of the TOTE process:

In this generalized illustration, the NLP practitioner repeatedly tests the present state of an individual, group or organization against a specific desired outcome state, continuing to access and apply resources to the system until the two states become congruent. The present state and the outcome state will be defined in terms of the distinctions available to the client (individual, group or organization) in each of the two states. The resources available to the client will be made up of the strategies in the client's repertoire and those in the programmer's repertoire, including the programmer's meta strategies for modifying or replacing the client's strategies when necessary to achieve congruity in the two states. The operations involved in indentifying, accessing and applying resource strategies will be presented in the following chapters on Elicitation, Utilization, Design and Installation.

2.1 Nested TOTEs

An important aspect of the TOTE model is that the operate phase of one TOTE may include other TOTEs — with their own tests and operations — nested inside it. TOTEs may exhibit a hierarchic structure, then, with respect to one another. A simple example of this "nesting" arrangement, offered by Miller, Galanter and Pribram, is that of hammering a nail.

A carpenter, for instance, may start with a very abstract form of TOTE that we'll call "making a table." The operate phase for this TOTE requires a number of subroutines or subTOTEs including "attach legs to table surface." This TOTE, in turn, is composed of other subTOTEs such as "hammer nail through table surface into leg." The test for this TOTE is that the nail head must be flush with the table surface before the carpenter can exit to another step. If this test is not satisfied, the carpenter will go through a somewhat noisy operate phase called "hammering," which involves two subTOTEs, "lifting hammer" and "striking nail." The specific TOTE sequence of hammering a nail is described as follows by Miller and his co–authors:

"If this description of hammering is correct, we should expect the sequence of events to run off in this order: Test nail. (Head sticks up). Test hammer. (Hammer is up). Strike nail. Test hammer. (Hammer is down). Test nail. (Head sticks up). Test hammer. And so on, until the test of the nail reveals that its head is flush with the surface of the work, at which point control can be transfered elsewhere. Thus the compound of TOTE units unravels itself simply enough into a coordinated sequence of tests and actions, although the underlying structure that organizes and coordinates the behavior is hierarchical and not sequential."

The compound of "nested" TOTEs described in the above excerpt can be represented visually in the following diagram:

2.2 Refining the TOTE Model With Representational Systems.

The neurolinguistic programming model refines the TOTE concept by specifying the components of TOTES in terms of representational systems and strategies. NLP asserts that for behavioral processes (including cognitive activities) the test conditions and the operations of the TOTE can usefully be described as taking place through our representational systems. We are able to identify and assign with precision some representational system, or combination of representational systems, for each step in the TOTE sequence.

In the above example of hammering a nail, for example, the test of whether or not the nail is flush may be made by comparing the incoming visual experience of the position of the nail with some stored internal visual representation of what the nail looks like when it is flush. To make our TOTE analysis simpler we will borrow from the 4–tuple and abbreviate visual experience which comes from external sources as V^e. Internally generated visual representations will be abbreviated as Vⁱ. The formal aspects of the testing of the nail in the hammering example, if it is done by looking at the nail, involves the comparison of external and internal visual representations — or V^e /Vⁱ.

This same comparison could also be made through tactile kinesthetic experience — the feelings in the carpenter's hand and arm will be different when s/he hits a nail that is flush than they will when s/he hits a nail that is still sticking up. The comparison here will take place between external kinesthetic sensations and internally generated kinesthetic experience — or K^e/Kⁱ. The same type of comparison may also be made auditorily in that the sound of the blow of the hammer against the nail will be different when the nail is flush and when it is not. The formal aspects of this particular comparison would involve auditory external (A^e) vs. auditory internal (Aⁱ); that is, A^e/Aⁱ.

An experienced journeyman carpenter can probably make the test easily and comfortably through any of these three representational systems; the inexperienced carpenter may not be able to do so. The ability to substitute different representational systems during a particular task may serve as a reliable measure of competence, experience and flexibility for those involved in many different occupations.

The operations of the carpenter, in this case, will be represented through the external kinesthetic system since they involve only the lifting and striking actions of the carpenter's arm. (We class motor responses as kinesthetic external (K^e) because it is through the tactile and proprioceptive systems that such movement will be represented to the individual.)