Wouldn't work:

But there is that tricky word "may". May suggests a choice and a choice, particularly one that requires the character to spend an action, may be removed by a Control Manipulation.

So, what you're saying is, if you successfully land a control manipulation and specifically order the target to not resist your spell then they just stop resisting?

You can't compel someone not to resist compulsion. Obviously the act of resistance supersedes the compulsion, and thus any commands not to resist the compulsion are also being resisted.

I see the logic behind it, and I don't claim that there's a rule explicitly forbidding it, but don't try it at my gaming table.

You'd also have to know that they were capable of sustaining spells so you could order them to sustain the control. It's not impossible by any means, but neither is it a given.

Even if you cannot compel someone to resist compulsion, you can compel someone to spend all of their actions doing something other than resisting compulsion, since resisting compulsion is a complex, this would make it impossible for the character to resist the compulsion.

I've always read the "may" as the target must either be aware they are being controlled, or be uninclined to follow the order.

So, for example the Suggestion spell makes the target believe it is his own idea. As long as it's reasonably subtle ("I need to go take a whizz") it would probably be unresisted after the initial spellcasting/resistance test. OTOH, a blatant command ("shoot your buddy") or the other spells Control Thoughts, and Control Actions are much more blantant - you know something's going on, and get the resistance tests as a matter of course.

That feels like some sort of major flaw, and unrelated to the topic at hand, but here goes a little divergance...

If the caster gets to prevent you from resisting by using all your actions then you never really get a resist. I always assume that if some simple trick exists then it's SOP for everyone, so if all you have to do is order your target to use takeaim actions continually until you give him another order then they never have a chance to resist and therefore basically noone can ever resist...

If the subject gets to say, I'm using this complex action to resist, and they use all their complex actions thus, then control manipulations have no value because all they really do is delay someone.

Where is the middle ground here? And what does the rule say? Hummn...

The middle ground here is that for that to work you'd have to totally micromanage your controlled individual. Inefficient to say the least.

I take the DnD route that the target will make that resistance roll when compelled to do something against their nature. Players will want their characters back and make those resistance rolls at every opportunity, I chalk that up to "hero advantage". For NPCs they make resistance rolls when I, as gamemaster, think it appropriate. Far less frequently.

Yea, it's usually something simple like that...

Actually you could read it the other way too. Since every Force turns he spends a complex action, for that turn whoever is controlling him may not be able to give an order.

But I'm of the school of thought that it's done before any orders are given, and is a complex action since he'll break out of it that turn.

Well, no guarentee that the target succeeds at breakin it. Makes sense though to just have the target spend that action resisting and the caster doesn't get anything out of him until his next action...

Swinging back to the topic.....

1)
It has been suggested that use of the Living Focus Power is problematic (to the point of metagaming) because it demands cooperation and planning on the part of the characters, with long-term goals affecting their choices in the moment.

This is a problem?

If an adept were part of a long-term team, it could even make sense to eventually take the adept Power Pain Relief.

"Sure, go ahead and cast that spell with the horrid drain on me... I'll take away the pain you can't resist yourself."

2)
While there are some circumstances in combat where the Living Focus Power may be useful, I get the sense it would more often be used in other situations, or perhaps leading up to the actual fighting. Just one example might be the stealth/scout -oriented adept who is ensorcelled with Spatial Sense while the mage who did it to him projects to provide astral cover/scouting. I dunno... it seems like a plan to me.

I'm not saying it's a drawback per se, in any gaming sense. I'm just saying that most players, when making a character, prefer to make the character as self-sufficient as possible. It's the rare group where the players all design their characters together, and it's the rare player who chooses abilities to help other characters in ways other than fufilling their chosen role. I think requiring cooperation makes it unpopular not because cooperation is worse than self-sufficiency, but because most players don't work that way.

Living Focus doesn't require much cooperation during character creation. All you need to know is that there will be a mage on the team with spells that are useful when sustained, whose persona is such that he would cast them on his teammates. Since most team mages will pick up at least one of Increased Reflexes, Improved Invisibility, Heal, etc. you're good to go. Assuming you know the people you're gaming with fairly well, you could possibly even buy the power without ever mentioning it, knowing it will be useful.