I’m open to the idea that imaginal worlds, dreams, fantasies etc. have some sort of fuzzy existence; some sort of ‘reality quotient’ if you like that is not quite on par, not as substantial or concrete as material reality. I guess that Richards categorising of the world into actuality and reality is tacit support for this – although I’m not quite sure he would agree with me.
In the history of philosophy and metaphysics there are some very elaborate, impressive metaphysical works in support of idealism, materialism and just about every -ism in between. Its a rabbit hole that can be fun to get into or alternatively invite migraines 
(see: Drawing the line between feeling and fact for the mother of all discussions on a very similar line of enquiry) … but which ultimately gets one nowhere fast and makes very little difference in your day to day existence. As Miguel said, actualism is not philosophy. Its about rolling one’s sleeves up and seeing if you can contact actuality via the PCE – from where you can either confirm or refute Richard’s conclusions for yourself.