If you're not even going to allow a discussion of how there can be hits when you throw out a bunch of predictions then I agree the discussion won't get anywhere.
No I have no problem starting up a discussion around it, your comment just reminded me of why it always ends up in frustration and goes nowhere... it's the equivalent of using a calculator to measure the weight of an object. Wrong tool for the job.
It is a common tactic used by skeptics and I am not sure whether it is done deliberately to discredit something or through a lack of understanding. The strength of a Psychic, Mediumship reading or Prediction is in the entirety of the information not in 1 or 2 pieces. Anyone that has been to a talented Psychic or Medium knows it isn't about the 1 or 2 things... it's about everything. How they capture the personality, the names the dates the way they felt before they died etc. A Psychic saying "I can feel he passed from chest related illness because I feel pain in my chest... was it a heart attack?" If the person died from pain in their chest and it was because they were shot through the heart.... you would see that as a 100% fail. Yet any normal person would go "Yeah I can see why you would think it was a heart attack because it would have felt like it".
I don't think you can break down a prediction like that into tiny packets of information so that in the end you can use statistics to say "10 bits of info were right and 10 bits were not exactly accurate so they had a 50% miss rate so the entire prediction was wrong" because that is exactly where this is going.
The study design you are proposing to use to prove whether or not the prediction was correct... is completely flawed because it does not allow for the fact we could have human error with interpretation of symbols.
I'll show you a perfect example of where your "study design" is flawed and how it would end up disproving a real conversation between 10 living people.
You get 20 people together in 2 lines of 10 either side of a room. The line on the left is playing Chinese whispers. The line on the right is PRETENDING to play chinese whispers but you don't know which is doing what. Both lines get told what subject the phrase is about
"Cooking for a family member".
The line on the right pretends to whisper but don't actually have anything to say... they only know it's about
"cooking for a family member".
The line on the left have a factual statement so they start by whispering the following:
"Tomorrow night I'm cooking a special meal for my step brother, in laws 50th birthday. I'm making ricotta balls baked at 220 degrees with tomato relish and a side of crinkle cut chips. I'll also be serving it with home made ginger beer"
Finally once it gets to the 10th person in each queue they have to say out aloud what they heard.
The person in the right line (who did not have a statement so are "cold reading") says the following:
"I'm cooking a meal for a relative... their favourite is chicken but I've decided to make something different this time and looking at Italian or maybe some Authentic Asian"
The person on the end of the right line who DID get the statement said the following:
"Tomorrow I am cooking a special meal for my brother who is 50. I'm going to make ricotta ravioli with tomato sauce and we'll have potato chips as well to snack on. I'm also going to serve some of my home made beer.
Now you don't have to be Einstein to see which people were "Cold reading" or "guessing" and who obviously was communicating and receiving information but in a difficult way that involved some misinterpretation because of how quickly and quietly the information came in (Such as through 10 people playing Chinese whispers) as happens exactly in a reading.
But using your study design... you are going to end up coming to the conclusion that they are both making it up... and that there is no evidence that they were ever playing chinese whispers and had communicated... even though the person on the left queue's statement was obviously coming from someone.
Using your design would be breaking down the "reading" into almost entirely misses... because he said "brother" instead of "brother in law", "ricotta ravioli" instead of "ricotta ball", "potato chips instead of "chips" and "Beer" when it was actually "Ginger Beer".
Now if you can't use that study design to prove an actual conversation between 10 people talking about a meal they are cooking tomorrow ever existed when it actually did... I am not sure you can use it to prove PSI where the information comes to a psychic in pretty much the say way... quickly and in symbols that need to be interpreted and put together. It is way too flawed and doesn't allow for interpretation of data.