Questions on Wally's Training

[Fox!]

Wally's Training (Supporter)
Search your deck for a card that evolves from your Active Pokémon (choose 1 if there are 2) and put it on your Active Pokémon. (This counts as evolving that Pokémon.) Shuffle your deck afterward.

Question 1:
Does this card allow you to evolve a Pokémon you just played on that turn? Example: I play a Ralts, and switch it with my active Pokémon, am I allowed to evolve it into Kirlia using this card?

Question 2:
Does this card allow you to evolve a Pokémon you already evolved on that same turn? Example: I have an active Ralts, on my second turn, I evolve it to Kirlia, if I play Wally's Training in the same turn, am I allowed to evolve Kirlia into Gardevoir?

Question 3:
Does this card allow you to bypass a Stage 1 Evolution and go strait to a Stage 2 Evolution? Example: I have an active Ralts, and I use this card to search for a Gardevoir, and play it directly on Ralts. (I assume no, but Gardevoir technically "evolves from" Ralts)

Question 4:
Can you evolve your Active Basic Pokémon using Rare Candy, then use Wally's Training to evolve it again? Example: I have an active Ralts, and I use Rare Candy to evolve it into Kirlia from my hand, then I play Wally's Training to search my deck for Gardevoir, is this legal?

Question 5:
What do you think the food that Wally is giving to Ralts in the card's picture tastes like?

 

[Fantasy Fox]

1. No
2. No
3. No/Maybe
4. No, but you will have Gardevoir in your hand
5. Sweet(because Ralts is smiling)

It says on the card "This counts as evolving that Pokemon", this means that you gotta play by the original rules.

 

[NoPoke]

A1: yes but not the first turn of play. ref http://www.pokegym.net/showthread.php?t=1122

A2: I'd rule Yes. but see later....

A3: NO: has to be the next link up the chain. same reference.

A4: Yes. but...

IIRC We have been told that both cards break the normal evolution restrictions (must find a reference for this). So that is why I gave Yes for both A2 and A4. However it is not clear to me that we have established exactly what restrictions are implied by 'counts as evolving' and 'evolves from' .

We could easily be told that neither card breaks the usual restriction that you cannot evolve a card that has evolved this turn.