He Who Was Not

[zenmaster]

As in, you are saying it lacks utility or has utility?

It obviously provides utility. The point is that info perceived using the faculty of intuition may be related, suggestively, even when it has not yet been grasped - that is, integrated into experience. Because the intuition, on its own, merely points toward something, it may not add to experience unless digested or 'grasped' using rational faculties. Things actually added to experience are those which provide infinitely more utility.

I'm just not sure who defines the parameters of "an experience" to the extent that they can judge the "rationality" of another's experience.

I must not have been clear. It's not the rationality of experience that is being judged. Right now, here in 3D, the worldview which is called "experience" is due to the rational processing of perception. That's "rational" in the Jungian sense (i.e. feeling/thinking dichotomy).

I'm also confused at what point "pre-rational" info, thus becomes rational?

Pre-rational perception (i.e. from intuition) becomes responsibly "owned" as rational experience when there is some conscious act of evaluation exercised. This experience, as memory, is inheritable for those searching in the direction offered by that view.

How does that change the information itself?

The info that intuition was pointing at only ever existed as something which might be subject to discernment. The more vague the info, the less there is which changes. i.e. "all is one", and (obviously) therefore the less offered for balancing particular imbalances.
What is newly created in the form of experience is what changes, the basic info is going to remain the same (as, unsurprisingly, principles of evolution itself).