Is ID falsifiable by any kind of experiment?

Michael Behe claims that if Lenski's experiment on e-coli produced some novel function, that would disprove ID.I don't see how it would. Why couldn't the ID proponent just claim that the designer guided the experiment psychically? On theoretical grounds, the ID proponent could claim, "this couldn't have happened with mutation and natural selection. There was an infusion of information from somewhere." How can we rule out the activity of a designer when there are no limits on how this designer operates? Any experiment can be tainted.It seems to me for ID to be falsifiable, there was to be some type of mechanism/limits for how the designer operates.

Yes, that's my point. If "design" includes any type of mechanism how could it possibly be falsified. I'm puzzled by ID proponents like Behe and Meyer saying that if certain experiments produced certain results, ID would be falsified. They would be falsified if they specified or limited the possible actions of a designer. But if design includes actions of a supernatural kind (with who knows what motivations), how would it be possible to falsify that?So it seems to me that ID is unfalsifiable, and unscientific.They seem to have some implicit assumptions in how the designer would behave.

In this video at 38:24
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFut_C3DSB8&t=2336s What are these limits and have they been stated? This is exactly what I'm looking for, because I haven't seen anyone giving any parameters/mechanism for how the designer operates. Until these parameters have been stated, I don't see how to rule out the interference of a designer in any experiment.

So if something is repeatable by experiment... and not directed by the experimenter... would you rule out a mind directing the experiment?

Ok. That's interesting to me. So you don't take the results of the experiment itself as evidence of a mind.So I think you posted this before, but for you there are 2 reasons for leaning towards ID. If either one were false, then you wouldn't be in favor of ID?1. Known mechanisms don't explain the complexity of life.
2. There are no repeatable undirected experiments showing this complexity arise.So if we could have repeatable experiments showing this complexity arise... even if we don't know the mechanism, you'd still rule out a designer... ie: you wouldn't resort to the reasoning... "the only known mechanism for this happening is intelligence" ?