I believe in a "too perfect" theory, but rather than resolving it with the inclusion of red herrings, I believe more in shutting all doors and disproving the obvious answer, when possible.

It's not. There is no opportunity to choose in this scenario. Without giving too much away, there is no 'playing along' or being 'in on it'. I think that's what makes it unique. A confederate is a willing participant, either beforehand (which is not permitted on the show) or recruited on the spot (which is permitted on the show, but never happens in this case). This is more like dual reality, but one in which there is no alternate effect, in spite of there being an alternate experience. If I do a trick that can't be surrounded, but I do it surrounded... AND I engineer the scenario so that nobody can speak up about what they see... there are no confederates. Nobody has willingly chosen to do anything, in this case. When I go to a museum and I remain behind the viewing barriers, that doesn't make me an unofficial employee of the museum. I would have to do something far more, like collect the trash and take it to the dumpster. In the former, I'm merely a guest (I don't even have to like the exhibits). In the latter, I'm choosing to benefit the establishment (solicited or not) in a manner above and beyond a guest. On the other hand, if I defy the viewing barriers, I am no longer a guest. I am trespassing. Trespassing requires an active choice that is not offered... meaning that the presence of a barrier does not offer me choice. It establishes an expectation. I the end, both spectators are asked (on the spot, with witnesses) to freely name a card and a number of their choosing, and that is exactly what they do. They are also given some additional (apparently benign/neutral) instruction (that the audience hears and equally comprehends) without the slightest wink or nod, and they do as they are told.

...yep. I don't think it's as high-tech as he is suggesting.