Hi, first i trust and believe most things from farsight sessions, and have validated a lot of informations with my own remote viewr friend/wife.

I am curious if Courtney ever tried to explain their understanding why each sessions has like at least 30-40% of different information between each viewr?

Sometimes the subject appearence is different, or the place they are is different, or the whole content itself. Usually most of the times there is strong correlation of information, and it is clear that each viewr is reading the same target, but even so there are differences of what each one is picking up and describing.

I am not asking this in a way to say something is wrong, i am asking this in a educational and curious way of why they each pick different informations of the same subject/target.

Yes, Sir C.B. has certainly explained that the differences are because individual Remote-Viewers might notice different things that they find of interest, for example, even if the same building is being Remote-Viewed, one might have a greater interest in its height or architecture, another might pay more attention to the colours of its walls and signs or decorations that are posted or painted on said building, another Remote-Viewer might take more of an interest in its interior, etc.; these are not his exact examples, but, should give you a basic idea of what I am para-phrasing. Same target, different descriptions, but, should each Remote-Viewer re-do enough «passes» with viewing the same target(s), all of them should get a lot of the same information, sort of like if you have a class-room of students who are given an assignment to paint a building or paint a river-land-scape, they might not look the same at every stage of the process, but, eventually, they should start resulting in a lot of similarities (and, considering that they all use an Advanced SRV-Protocol, the metaphorical-painting that they piece together typically starts with their environment, followed by surroundings, the existence of any structures, whether any subjects are present, then, which-ever other details and information that they manage to uncover).

I reckon that RV is more like astral travel then like "Q&A" readings.

The coordinates throw your projection into the place mentioned in the Target script, but from there you're just kind of stuck piecing together where and why you're there. Some will follow the thread succinctly, staying nearby in the region and timeline. Others will immediately shift into following subjects they pick up, or jumping to times that describe the origin or the end of that event.

Kind of like if I told you to go by the east docks next to Mac's convenience store tonight at 10 and tell me what you find. Well you might get there but who knows where you'll look after that.

It's a bit difficult to assess, if we're not privy to the paper sessions before we see the filmed aspect of the Viewings.
The Viewers may well have near identical information at the beginning of the sessions - like a tree trunk, then each branches out on the Target, picking up things relative to the target that they personally perceive and can interpret strongly, which may be different to but relative to the Target.
And from what I can deduct from writing out the transcripts for the sessions, each Farsight Remote Viewer meets aspects of the event which are impressionable individually to them as well as aspects of the event as a collective viewing.
We also don't know if the interviewer is involved and asking for further explanation of some Target aspects - these may not be the same for each viewer - it would depend on the information they get.
Because the Farsight Protocol for Sessions has such a structure where it allows for base information (the trunk) to be expanded upon, as the session expands (branches out) and target explored - it's like each person looking at the leaves, flowers, fruit, and insects on the branch that they took. They're all sitting in the same tree - just connected to different aspects of it.