You haven't said whether the client is dissociative or not; I'll assume not. In such a case the RDI to access a state is great, the state or resource needs a handle, not necessarily a name. I mean, "10" or "vibrant self" is better than "Victoria Rose the Conqueror." Best to round down so there isn't ego investedness in the separateness, which could be understood as encouraging dissociation. There are some who say iatrogenic dissociation is made just this way, by unnecessarily naming separateness; others say it doesn't tend to stick but rather reabsorbs. I still say a clinician is best to round down and use a functional handle rather than a name with attitude, wardrobe and so forth (to exaggerate a tad). The practice part is great, the cognitive interweave part is great if done according to the standard protocol. That means, only introduced if there is looping, not just in the middle of processing.

If that part of self is invited to "look through the eyes" during processing, then it is executive or ego cathected. Since this hypothetical client is not DID, the rest of the self is coconscious and copresent and there is by definition an integration piece. Only the presence of a Name (ego invested in separateness) rather than a functional handle would be a bad plan.

In a non-DID person, this step will likely cause the 10 year old to grow up and be integrated with the rest of self. In a dissociative person, I'd have a slightly different answer for you, because its more complex.

I'm not sure what protocol or whose method you are using, but it doesn't sound like the standard protocol of EMDR or RDI. Might be too much directing or guidance going on. If the therapist just stays out of the way, if the ego state is present and if there is bls, it WILL integrate most likely.

Does that take care of your question? or is there more?