The Rorschach Performance Assessment System (R-PAS; Meyer, Viglione, Mihura, Erard, & Erdberg, 2011) introduced R-optimized administration to reduce variability in the number of Responses (R). We provide new data from six studies of participants randomly assigned to receive a version of this method or Comprehensive System (CS; Exner, 2003) administration. We examine how administration methods affect 3 types of codes most likely to contain potential projective material and the frequency of these codes for the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or last response to a card (R in Card). In a meta-analytic summary, we found 37% of responses have 1 type of code, 19% have 2 types, and 3% have all 3 types, with stable proportions across responses within cards. Importantly, administration method had no impact on potential projective variable means. Differential skew across samples made variability harder to interpret. Initial results suggesting differences in 3 of the 18 specific Type by R in Card pairs did not follow a coherent pattern and disappeared when using raw counts from all participants. Overall, data do not support concerns that R-optimized administration might alter potential projective processes, or make potentially "signature" last responses to the card any different in R-PAS than the CS.