This is going to be interesting ....
I think there is little doubt Randi will want some of his team to police experiment. How about having open minded scientists police the paranormal policemen?
Due to experimenter effects (whether normal or paranormal) ... have both mentalities present (I don't mean in home, just checking each other's observation or task) might even things up a bit.
Also the die-hard skeptics will want to raise the bar as high as possible for 'preliminary' and if that works, raise it higher still for actual prize challenge. It might end up
'dogs that know when owners come home after 3 days away' and if the worried dog stays 70 minutes in hall hoping owner will come home, say on day 2, if the dog then spends all 20 minutes in hall when she is coming home on day 3 .... the experiment is stamped 'failure' ... I have little doubt most die-hard skeptics would defend each other with 'yes, dog failed trial, that is the correct conclusion - no evidence..'
To quote the late Professor Marcello Truzzi ....
'....There are some myths about science and scientists that need to be dispelled. Science gets mistaken as a body of knowledge for its method. Scientists are regarded as having superhuman abilities of rationality inside objectivity. Many studies in the psychology of science, however, indicate that scientists are at least as dogmatic and authoritarian, at least as foolish and illogical as everybody else, including when they do science. In one study on falsifiability, an experiment was described, an hypothesis was given to the participants, the results were stated, and the test was to see whether the participants would say, "This falsifies the hypothesis". The results indicated denial, since most of the scientists refused to falsify their hypotheses, sticking with them despite a lack of evidence! Strangely, clergymen were much more frequent in recognizing that the hypotheses were false....'
Believers and even open minded can of course make errors in conclusion too. But if ordinary scientists do that due to expectations and favouring explanations, what mistakes of judgment/action/analysis are skeptics too keen to debunk prone to make? Ideally both should be present.
Police the psi policemen?