Actually this is kind of telling with regard to the "brown M&M principle." The the items in an effort/response validity measure reflect some kind of systematic

Actually this is kind of telling with regard to the "brown M&M principle." The the items in an effort/response validity measure reflect some kind of systematic schema on the part of respondents. It's very non-arbitrary. The brown M&Ms in contrast are sort of trivial and arbitrary. That is, there's nothing about M&Ms that has anything to do with actual stage safety or management, and the assumption that attention to M&Ms and stage safety are the same is kind of odd. In fact, one might argue that the brown M&M clause pulls for a sort of cargo cult phenomenon, where people are following something to the letter without regard to deeper principles or understanding of what's important or not. Sometimes psychological tests do have items that test for random responding, which is maybe more comparable. But even then I don't think it's the same, because it's still item responses that are critical. To me the brown M&M test is like looking at the response time to an initial consent page, and arguing that if that is unusually long the person probably isn't responding to the items per se. I think there's maybe something to the brown M&M test but to me it pulls for the wrong things. Why not just actually, you know, make sure they abide by the long list of supposedly safety-critical items that you specified? If you as the performer are so sure that they're safety critical, but can't be bothered to check those, and instead rely on brown M&Ms, because it's easy to check in your dressing room, who's the one being lax about the stage?