In "Where is the Denition of Consciousness"[1] (WdDoC) it was pointed out that the Turingtest[2] is in need of an upgrade. However Bayne[3] et al do an extraordinary job of reviewing the field of Consciousness testing, and insightfully extend the scope to a much more general one that includes nonhuman animals, xenobots and more, making such a Turing test upgrade eectively a moot exercise.

From the Definition of Consciousness that is remarkably similar to Tononi's[4], McKenzie's[5] as well as to Axel Cleeremans and Luis Jiménez[6] Definition of Learning, this article points out that the level of sophistication (or simplicity) of a given Conscious Entity has to be taken into consideration, but that the features tested as part of the Definition (Advaita Vedanta Boolean Algebraic capability,Memory, Imagination / Creativity, Ability to action future insights and learn from mistakes ) remains the same regardless of the scope and resources. Given that PID Control strictly meets the Definition of Consciousness, the difficulty and comprehensiveness of the task is highlighted by how rigorous and thorough PID Controller testing has to be in Safety-critical Engineering.

Additionally it is agreed that Schweizer's[7] perspective is correct: selection of a single entity (or too small a sample size) is statistically risky, and that the only way to mitigate such is to test Groups of entities. However crucially the same statistical risk of small sample size applies equally to the number of Groups tested.