Given that Control Mastery can be such a pro-active approach to treatment, I am glad that Dr. Karlsson brought up the issue of countertransference. Joe Weiss has noted that countertransference (in the sense of an internal experience valuable to the therapy) enters into CM's notion of passive- into-active testing, in which the patient places the therapist into her own role as incapacitated (passive) child by herself assuming the role of a pressuring parent toward the therapist. Weiss rightly says that as clinicians we must pay close attention to our own affects in such cases, presumably to understand the nature of the test and devise ways of passing it.
The same could be said for transference tests. In fact, since this kind of test tends to leave us in the more comfortable dominant role (as when Caroline tested to see if the therapist would want to assume the kind of control over her that her father had), it might be even more difficult to pick up on than passive-into-active interactions. It appears that the latter is CM's version of projective identification (as developed by theorists like Thomas Ogden from the Kleinians).
I do wonder, however, about CM's handling of positive projective identifications, in which the patient lends out a potential strength of her own, perhaps to see whether the therapist will usurp it or instead help model ways in which the patient can appropriate the potential as her own. This is the dilemma I understood Dr. Karlsson to be alluding to. It comes up in Caroline's therapy when the therapist advocates for space and safety for her from her parents. The test for the therapist comes in observing whether the way in which she makes this move further debilitates the patient or leads her to relax and engage more deeply in the therapy, typically by moving on to further meaningful disclosures. The CM therapist's protection against countertransference impasses, as I understand it, comes in looking closely to the patient's ensuing responses and behaviors to determine the efficacy of an intervention, especially the active ones.
I wonder whether the two hard sessions in which Caroline objected to her therapist "acting like her father and taking things out of her hands" wasn't a test of whether she'd be allowed or even invited to stand up to the therapist (thus laying claim to her own potential for self-advocacy) without losing the therapist as a necessary ally. The attendant pathogenic belief might be: "there can only be one strong person or winner in a human interaction." I am therefore particularly curious to know more about what went on between therapist and patient during this two day struggle, and whether the CM therapist would at this point bring her understanding of the test up for discussion, by saying something like the following: "I am feeling very concerned about your safety, given what you've just told me about yourself, and strongly moved to advocate for your safety from self-destructive behaviors and for relief from your parents, but am aware that I risk seeming like your father when he takes things out of your hands." (I would also hope to be less wordy at it.)