No. The current standard, as exemplified by most literature on the subject and most recently and relevantly by the NICE ME/CFS Guideline evidence review, is that subjective outcomes in unblinded trials constitute low or very low quality evidence of treatment efficacy. If the reviewers in the exercise therapy review are capable assessors of trials, then we won't have a problem. And that improvement in the assessment of trials in Cochrane can start to flow through to other reviews, to the benefit of Cochrane's reputation and many vulnerable people. What makes you think that the reviewers on this particular review won't adhere to basic scientific standards? I do share your concerns about many of the appointees to this review. But surely the solution is not to try to come up with a workaround solution that steps around the fundamental flaw in GET and CBT trials? Any such solution will not stop the flow of mediocre trials. Surely the solution is to make sure that the reviewers have the required level of scientific literacy?