HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 10 FEBRUARY 1980
ISSUE VI
Remimeo
Saint Hills	
Only
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE
LEVEL F CHECKSHEET
HUBBARD CASE REPAIR SPECIALIST

(Cancels:
BPL 18 Mar 75R II, 	LEVEL FIVE CHECKSHEET
Rev. 25.3.77 	SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE
BPL 25 Mar 77 	SENIOR SAINT HILL SPECIAL
	BRIEFING COURSE)

NAME:	ORG:	

DATE STARTED:	 DATE COMPLETED:	

This checksheet contains key technical issues from 1967 to 1979 that are not otherwise covered on the SHSBC courses. It also covers all of the tech needed to fully repair a pc and get him back on the Grade Chart. The auditor learns the tech of verifying and correcting L&N lists, full PTS handllngs, Int RDs, Prepared Lists such as the C/S 53 and the G/F and the FESing and programming of cases. It also includes advanced hatting on the E-Meter and how it works.

PREREQUISITES: (1) Student Hat or PRD (2) New Era Dianetics Course (3) New Era Dianetics Interneship (4) Class IV (5) SHSBC Level A course (6) SHSBC Level B Course (7) SHSBC Level C Course (8) SHSBC Level D Course (9) SHSBC Level E Course.

PURPOSE: To provide the student with all the tech from 1967 to 1979 necessary to fully repair any case.

LENGTH: 	Full time (9:00 am - 10:30 pm) - 41/2 weeks 
	Part time (9:00 am - 6:00 pm) - 61/2 weeks 
	Foundation hours = 101/2  weeks.

STUDY TECH: This course is studied per HCO PL 25 Sep 79, Issue I - IMPORTANT, SUCCESSFUL TRAINING LINEUP, with full use of study tech.
 
R-FACTOR: The Theory and Practical Sections of this course are done concurrently. The student audits daily either during his practical time or outside of course hours while continuing through the theory section of the checksheet. 

EP: Certainty that you can repair a case and get it back on the Grade Chart.

PRODUCT: An auditor who has the key tech from 1967 to 1979, who fully understands the E-Meter and who can repair a case and get it back on the Grade Chart.

CERTIFICATE: SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE - LEVEL F HUBBARD CASE REPAIR SPECIALIST.

SHSBC LEVEL F

THEORY SECTION

INTRODUCTION
1. 	HCO PL 	7 Feb 65 	KEEPING SCIENTOLOGY 
	Reiss. 	15.6.70	WORKING	_________
2. 	HCO PL 	17 Jun 70R 	TECH DEGRADES
	Rev. 	9.4.77		_________
3. 	HCO PL 	14 Feb 65 	SAFEGUARDING TECHNOLOGY	_________

CHRONOLOGICAL THEORY
1. 	HCOB 	2 Jan 67 	DATING - FORBIDDEN WORDS	_________
2. 	HCOB 	22 Mar 67 	ALTER-IS AND DEGRADED BEINGS	_________
2A. 	DEMO: How a degraded being becomes one.	_________
3. 	HCOB 	30 Jun 67 	EVIDENCES OF AN ABERRATED 	
			AREA	_________
3A. 	ESSAY: How to apply the evidences in the above HCOB to the 
	programming of a case.		_________
4. 	HCOB 	19 Aug 67 	THE SUPREME TEST	_________
4A. 	DEMO: The Supreme Test of a thetan.	_________
5. 	HCO PL 	15 Aug 67 	DISCIPLINE SPs & ADMIN 
			HOW STATISTICS CRASH	_________
6. 	HCOB 	18 Sep 67 	SCALES	_________
6A. 	DEMO: How the various scales interrelate.	_________
7. 	HCO PL 	1 Oct 67 	AKH USES OF ORGS	_________
8. 	HCO PL 	16 Oct 67 	AKH SUPPRESSIVES AND THE 
			ADMINISTRATOR	_________
9. 	HCOB 	9 Jan 68 	MONEY PROCESS	_________
9A. 	DEMO: How the Money Process restores havingness on money.	_________
10. 	HCOB 	12 Mar 68 	MISTAKES, ANATOMY OF	_________
11. 	HCOB 	20 May 68 	OVERT-MOTIVATOR SEQUENCE
	Reiss. 	5.3.74		_________
11A. CLAY DEMO: The overt-motivator sequence.	_________
12.	HCO PL 	18 Jun 68 	ETHICS	_________
13.	HCO PL	29 Jun 68 	ENROLLMENT IN SUPPRESSIVE 
			GROUPS	_________
14. 	BOOK: INTRODUCTION TO SCIENTOLOGY ETHICS	_________
15.	HCOB	26 Aug 68 	REHAB & CORRECTION	_________
16.	HCOB	28 Aug 68 	OUT TECH	_________
16A. DEMO: What happens when tech goes out.	_________
17.	HCOB	31 Aug 68 	WRITTEN C/S INSTRUCTIONS	_________
18.	HCOB	23 Sep 68 	DRUGS & TRIPPERS	_________
18A. DEMO: “Chemical Release” and what it does.	_________
18B. HCOB	14 Oct 68 	THE AUDITOR’S CODE	_________
18C. DRILL: The Auditor’s Code - verbatim.	_________
19.	HCO PL	21 Oct 68 	CANCELLATION OF FAIR GAME	_________
20.	HCOB	1 Nov 68 	HIGH TA	_________
21.	HCO PL	15 Nov 68 	CANCELLATION OF 
			DISCONNECTION	_________
22.	HCOB	26 Dec 68 	THE THIRD PARTY LAW	_________
22A. CLAY DEMO: The Third Party Law.	_________
23.	HCOB	8 Jan 69 	DRUGS AND INSANITY - NON
			COMPLIANCE AND ALTER-IS	_________
23A. DEMO: How drugs lead to alter-is.	_________
24.	HCOB	3 Mar 69 	CASE GAIN COMPLETING LEVELS	_________
24A. DEMO: What you know if a standard level doesn’t produce case gain.	_________
25.	HCOB	5 Apr 69 	NEW PRECLEARS THE 
	Reiss. 	26.5.70 	WORKABILITY OF SCIENTOLOGY	_________
25A. DEMO: The ways “no auditing” can occur.	_________
26.	HCOB	6 Apr 69 	FUNDAMENTAL AUDITING	_________
27.	HCOB	22 Apr 69 I 	SOMATICS AND OTS	_________
28.	HCOB	26 Apr 69 	SOMATICS
	Rev. 	11.7.78		_________
29.	HCOB	30 Apr 69 	AUDITOR TRUST	_________
30.	DEMO: How to make a safe auditing environment for the pc.	_________
31.	HCOB	24 Jul 69R 	SERIOUSLY ILL PCS
	Rev. 	24.7.78		_________
32.	HCOB	27 Jul 69 	ANTIBIOTICS	_________
33.	HCOB	11 May 69 II 	FORCING A PC
	Rev. 	12.10.69		_________
33A. DEMO: What happens if you force a pc.	_________
34.	DEMO: How to handle a pc who doesn’t want to go on.	_________
35.	HCOB	29 Mar 70 	AUDITING AND ETHICS	_________
35A. DEMO: Why you don’t audit a pc undergoing ethics.	_________
36.	HCOB	28 May 70 	CORRECTION LISTS, USE OF	_________
37.	HCOB	8 Jun 70 	LOW TA HANDLING	_________
38.	HCO PL	8 Sep 70RA 	EXAMINER’S 24 HOUR RULE
	Rev. 	24.10.75		_________
39.	HCOB	28 Nov 70 	C/S Series 22 PSYCHOSIS	_________
40. 	BOOK: 0-8 THE BOOK OF BASICS	_________
41.	HCO PL	13 Jan 71 	EXAM 24 HOUR RULE	_________
42.	HCOB	5 Mar 71 	C/S Series 25 THE FANTASTIC NEW 
			HGC LINE	_________
43.	HCOB	30 Apr 71 	AUDITING COMM CYCLE	_________
44.	HCOB	23 May 71RI 	Basic Auditing Series 1R 
	Rev. 	4.12.74 	THE MAGIC OF THE 	_________
			COMMUNICATION CYCLE
45.	HCOB	23 May 71R 	Basic Auditing Series 2R Issue II 
	Rev. 	6.12.74	THE TWO PARTS OF AUDITING	_________
46.	HCOB	23 May 71 	Basic Auditing Series 3 Issue III 
	Reiss. 	1.12.74	THE THREE IMPORTANT 
			COMMUNICATION LINES	_________
47.	HCOB	23 May 71R 	Basic Auditing Series 4R Issue IV
	Rev. 	4.12.74	COMMUNICATION CYCLES WITHIN
 			THE AUDITING CYCLE	_________
48.	HCOB	23 May 71RV	Basic Auditing Series 5R 
	Rev. 	29.11.74 	THE COMMUNICATION CYCLE IN 
			AUDITING	_________
49.	HCOB	23 May 71VI 	Basic Auditing Series 6 
			AUDITOR FAILURE TO 
			UNDERSTAND	_________
50.	HCOB	23 May 71 	Basic Auditing Series 7 Issue VII 
			PREMATURE 
			ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS	_________
51.	HCOB	5 Feb 66 	Basic Auditing Series 8
	Reiss. 	23.5.71 	“LETTING THE PC ITSA” THE
			PROPERLY TRAINED AUDITOR	_________
52.	HCOB	23 May 71X 	Basic Auditing Series 9
			COMM CYCLE ADDITIVES	_________
53.	HCOB	23 May 71R 	Basic Auditing Series 10R Issue VIII 
			RECOGNITION OF THE RIGHTNESS
			OF THE BEING	_________
54.	HCOB	23 May 71IX 	Basic Auditing Series 11
			METERING	_________
55.	HCOB	18 Jun 71 II 	C/S Series 46 DECLARES	_________
56.	HCOB	23 Jul 71R 	ASSISTS	
	Rev. 	16.7.78		_________
57A. DEMO: The steps of Post Purpose Clearing.	_________
58.	HCOB	8 Aug 71 	C/S Series 55 THE IVORY TOWER	_________
59.	HCOB	24 Aug 71R 	ASSISTS ADDITION	_________
60.	HCOB	15 Sep 71 	C/S Series 60 THE WORST TANGLE	_________
61.	HCOB	21 Oct 71 	ASSISTS IN SCIENTOLOGY	
	Reiss. 	21.9.74		_________
61A. DEMO: What an assist is.		_________
61B. DEMO: The steps of an assist.	_________
62.	HCOB	24 Oct 71R 	FALSE TA
	Rev. 	26.1.77		_________
63.	HCOB	25 Oct 71 	DRUG DRYING OUT	_________
64.	HCOB	25 Oct 71 	AUDITOR FAILURE TO 
			UNDERSTAND	_________
64A. DRILL: What to say when you don’t understand the pc.	_________	
65.	HCOB	12 Nov 71RA  FALSE TA ADDITION
	Rev. 	26.1.77		_________
66.	HCOB	15 Feb 72R 	FALSE TA ADDITION 2
	Rev. 	26.1.77		_________
67.	HCOB	18 Feb 72R 	FALSE TA ADDITION 3
	Rev. 	26.1.77		_________
68.	HCO PL	13 Mar 72 	PRODUCTION AND ESTABLISH-
			MENT ORDERS AND PRODUCTS	_________
69.	HCO PL	23 Mar 72 	FULL PRODUCT CLEARING LONG 
			FORM	_________
70.	HCO PL	4 Apr 72 	ETHICS	_________
71.	HCO PL	9 Apr 72R 	CORRECT DANGER CONDITION
	Rev. 	1.12.79 	HANDLING	_________
72.	HCO PL	3 May 72 	ETHICS AND EXECUTIVES	_________
72A. DRILL: A “3 May PL” handling.	_________
73.	HCOB	10 May 72 	ROBOTISM	_________
73A. DEMO: The cause and cure of robotism.	_________
74.	HCOB	20 Jul 72II 	DISTRACTIVE AND ADDITIVE 
			QUESTIONS AND ORDERS	_________
75.	DEMO: How additive and distractive questions, orders or comments 
	affect the pc.			_________
76.	HCOB	15 Nov 73R 	FEAR OF PEOPLE LIST - R
	Rev. 	4.12.73		_________
76A. HCOB	21 Nov 73	THE CURE OF Q&A - MAN’S 
			DEADLIEST DISEASE	_________
77.	HCOB	23 Nov 73R 	DRY AND WET HANDS MAKE 
	Rev. 	26.1.77	FALSE TA	_________
78.	HCOB	15 Dec 73 	THE CONTINUOUS MISSED W/H 	
			AND CONTINUOUS OVERT WITH 
			DATA ON DEGRADED BEINGS AND 
			FALSE PTS CONDITIONS	_________
78A. DEMO: A continuous missed withhold.	_________
78B. DEMO: A continuous overt.		_________
79.	HCOB	17 Feb 74 	C/S Series 91 MUTUAL OUT RUDS	_________
80.	HCOB	31 may 74 	UNHANDLED DRUGS AND ETHICS	_________
81.	HCOB	1 Nov 74R 	ROCK SLAMS AND ROCK 
	Rev. 	5.9.78	SLAMMERS	_________
82.	HCOB	5 Nov 74 	DRUGS, MORE ABOUT	_________
83.	HCOB	12 Jan 75 	QUADS REINSTATED	_________
84.	HCOB	29 Mar 75R 	ANTIBIOTICS, ADMINISTERING OF
	Rev. 	23.10.78		_________
85.	HCOB	23 Apr 75R 	VANISHING CREAM AND FALSE TA
	Rev. 	26.1.77		_________
86.	HCOB	27 Jul 76 	PTS RUNDOWN AND VITAL INFO 
			RD POSITION CORRECTED	_________
87.	HCOB	10 Aug 76R 	R/Ses, WHAT THEY MEAN
	Rev. 	5.9.78		_________
88.	HCOB	20 Oct 76 II 	PTS HANDLING	_________
89.	HCOB	6 Dec 76 	ILLEGAL PCS, ACCEPTANCE OF 
			HIGH CRIME BULLETIN	_________
90.	DEMO: The three categories of illegal pcs.	_________
91.	HCOB	13 Jan 77RA 	HANDLING A FALSE TA	_________
92.	HCOB	24 Jan 77 	TECH CORRECTION ROUND-UP	_________
93.	HCOB	26 Jan 77 	FOOTPLATES USE FORBIDDEN	_________
94.	HCOB	5 Feb 77 	C/S Series 100 
			JOKERS AND DEGRADERS	_________
95.	HCOB	1 Mar 77 II 	CONFESSIONAL FORMS	_________
96.	HCOB	1 Mar 77 	FORMULATING CONFESSIONAL
			QUESTIONS	_________
97.	HCOB	7 May 77 	LONG DURATION SEC CHECKING	_________
98.	HCOB	31 May 77 	LSD YEARS AFTER THEY HAVE
			“COME OFF OF” LSD	_________
99.	HCOB	23 Jul 78 	C/S Series 101
			LIST OF PERCEPTICS	_________
100.	HCOB	13 Sep 78 II 	CLEARS, OTS AND R/Ses	_________
101.	HCOB	26 Aug 78R 	MORE ON DRUGS
	Rev. 	5.10 78		_________
101A.HCOB	1 Dec 78 	PROGRAMMING THE DIANETIC 
			CLEAR FOR HIS NEXT STEP	_________
102.	HCOB	5 Dec 78 	C/S Series 105 DIANETIC CLEAR
			ATTESTS - ADDITIONAL DATA	_________
103.	HCOB	6 Dec 78 	REVIVIFICATION	_________
104.	HCOB	3 Feb 79 II 	CONFRONT TECH HAS TO BE PART
			OF THE TR CHECKSHEET	_________
105 . HCOB	3 Feb 78 	CHANGE THE CIVILIZATION EVAL
	Reiss. 	8.2.79		_________
106.	HCOB	9 Feb 79 	HOW TO DEFEAT VERBAL TECH	_________
107.	HCOB	15 Feb 79 	VERBAL TECH PENALTIES	_________
108.	HCOB	5 Mar 79R 	DIANETIC CLEAR FALSE DECLARES
	Rev. 	6.3.79		_________
109.	HCOB	24 Sep 79 	Cramming Series 19
			FLYING RUDS IN CRAMMING	_________
110.	HCOB	21 Dec 79 	C/S Series 107 AUDITOR
			ASSIGNMENT POLICIES, 
			CRAMMING ASSIGNMENT 
			POLICIES	_________
111. TAPE: 	6207C19 	THE E-METER
		SHSBC-172		_________
112. BOOK: UNDERSTANDING THE E-METER.	_________

- END OF SHSBC LEVEL F THEORY SECTION -

SHSBC LEVEL F

PRACTICAL SECTION

L&N VERIFICATION AND CORRECTION
* 1.	HCOB	11 Apr 77 	LIST ERRORS CORRECTION OF	_________
* 2.	HCOB	17 Mar 74 	TWC CHECKSHEETS - TWC, USING
			WRONG QUESTIONS	_________
3. 	CLAY DEMO:
1. A standard listing question.	_________
2. The usual reason for a self list and how to handle.	_________
3. How using a question which directly or indirectly calls for items in 	
	the pc’s answers can turn a 2WC into an L&N process.	_________
4. A random stray thought.		_________
5. A non-standard listing question.	_________
4.	DEMO: How to reconstruct a list.	_________
5. 	HCOB 	20 Apr 72 II 	C/S Series 78 PRODUCT PURPOSE
			AND WHY AND W/C ERROR 
			CORRECTION	_________
6. 	CLAY DEMO: The manifestations an out-list produces.	_________
7.	HCOB	30 Sep 68 	LISTS	_________
8.	DEMO: why you only get one F/N per type or list.	_________
9.	HCOB	15 Dec 68RA 	L4BRA	_________
10.	DRILL:
	A.	Verifying or checking past L&N.	_________
	B.	Checking for a possible out-list after an ethics interview, PTS 
	interview, 10 Aug. 2WC, cramming action, why-finding, Dianetic 
	auditing, post purpose clearing, product clearing, condition 
	assignment, and handling what is found.	_________
	C.	Reconstructing a list.		_________
	D.	Handling the situation of a pc giving a nonstandard listing question 
		as a “self list” (i.e. random stray thought).	_________
	E.	Finding and correcting the earlier out-list to handle a self list (various 		situations).		_________
	F.	Handling a sudden pc blow-up while correcting lists.	_________
	G.	What to do if key lists such as Grades III and IV are not reading. 	_________
	H.	Locating and handling a wrong indication.	_________
	I.	Hatting a pc on L&N, verifying and correcting so pc will know what 
		an out-list is. (NOTE: This hatting would be with the use of source 
		references.)		_________

HANDLING THE PTS
1.	HCOB	31 Dec 78 II 	OUTLINE OF PTS HANDLING	_________
2.	HCOB	31 Dec 78 	EDUCATING THE POTENTIAL 
		Issue III 	TROUBLE SOURCE, THE FIRST 
			STEP TOWARD HANDLING, 
			PTS C/S-1	_________
3.	DRILL: Doll drill the PTS C/S-1.	_________
4.	HCO PL	7 May 69 	POLICIES ON “SOURCES OF 
			TROUBLE”	_________
5.	DEMO: Demo each PTS Type A-J.	_________
6.	HCOB	10 Aug 73 	PTS HANDLING	_________
7.	DRILL: Drill a 10 Aug with a coach.	_________
8.	HCOB	24 Apr 72 I 	C/S Series 79 PTS INTERVIEWS	_________
9.	DRILL: Drill a PTS interview with a coach.	_________
10. 	BPL 	5 Apr 72RC 	PTS TYPE A HANDLING Issue I	_________
11. 	BTB 	11 Nov 77 	HANDLING PTS SITUATIONS 
	Reiss. 	10.12.77		_________
12. 	TAPE: PTS cassette - CAN WE EVER BE FRIENDS?	_________
13. 	CAN WE EVER BE FRIENDS? BOOKLET	_________
14.	DRILL: Drill with a coach handling a Type A sit. Include “coaching” per 
	the above BTB.		_________
15.	HCOB	24 Nov 65 	SEARCH AND DISCOVERY	_________
16.	DEMO: Demo the correct handling if the S&D item turns out to be a 
	group or condition or incident.	_________
17.	HCOB	16 Aug 69R 	HANDLING ILLNESS IN 
	Rev. 	25.9.78	SCIENTOLOGY 	_________

18.	DRILL: Drill the full procedure of S&D with a coach, including doing a 
	represent list.			_________
19.	HCOB	17 Apr 72 	C/S Series 76 
			C/SING A PTS RUNDOWN	_________
20.	DEMO: The EP of the PTS RD.	_________
21.	HCOB	9 Dec 71RC 	PTS RUNDOWN, AUDITED	_________
22.	DEMO: The 3 stages of handling PTSness.	_________
23.	HCOB	3 Jun 72RA 	PTS RUNDOWN, FINAL STEP 
	Rev. 	8.12.78		_________
24.	HCOB	20 Jan 72R 	PTS RD ADDITION 
	Rev. 	8.12.78		_________
25.	DRILL: Drill with a coach each of the steps of the PTS Rundown.	_________
26.	HCOB	29 Dec 78 	THE SUPPRESSED PERSON RD	_________
27. 	CLAY DEMO: The EP of the Suppressed Person RD	_________
28.	HCOB	30 Dec 78R 	SUPPRESSED PERSON RUNDOWN 
			PROBLEMS PROCESSES	_________
29.	DRILL: Drill the Suppressed Person RD with a coach, including the first 
	action.			_________
30.	HCOB	16 Aug72  	PTS RUNDOWN CORRECTION LIST	_________
31.	DEMO: Demo the handling of each line of the PTS Correction List.	_________
32.	DRILL: Drill assessing and handling the PTS Rundown Correction List 
	with a coach.			_________
33.	HCOB	15 Dec 73 	THE CONTINUOUS MISSED W/H 
			AND CONTINUOUS OVERT WITH 
			DATA ON DEGRADED BEINGS AND 
			FALSE PTS CONDITIONS	_________
34.	HCOB	20 Oct 76 II 	PTS HANDLING	_________
35.	DEMO: False PTSness.		_________

INTERIORIZATION RUNDOWN
1.	HCOB	4 Oct 78 	Int RD Series 1 INTERIORIZATION
			HANDLING SIMPLIFIED	_________
2.	DEMO: Why you would begin Int by running engram chains.	_________
3.	HCOB	4 Jan 71R 	Int RD Series 2 EXTERIORIZATION	_________
	Rev. 	24.9.78 	AND HIGH TA THE 
			INTERIORIZATION RD REVISED	_________
4.	DEMO: (A) Exteriorization. (B) Interiorization.	_________
5.	DEMO: How the beginning of exterior is interior.	_________
6.	DEMO: The procedure for getting the Int button that you will run.	_________
7.	DEMO: (A) Earlier beginning and (B) earlier incident and how each 	
	relates to running Int.		_________
8. 	CLAY DEMO: Each step of the Int Rundown, including full Dianetic EP 
	of a chain.			_________
9. 	CLAY DEMO: The EP of the Int Rundown.	_________
10.	HCOB	30 May 70R 	Int RD Series 3 INTERIORIZATION 
	Rev. 	23.9.78 	INTENSIVE 2 WAY COMS	_________
11.	DEMO: Two Way Comm on Int.	_________
12.	HCOB	24 Sep 78R I 	Int RD Series 4RA URGENT 
	Rev. 	21.2.79 	IMPORTANT THE END OF ENDLESS 
			INT REPAIR RUNDOWN	_________
13.	DEMO: When you would use the End of Endless Int Repair Rundown.	_________
14.	DEMO: Each step of the End Or Endless Int Repair RD.	_________
15.	HCOB	6 Dec 78 	REVIVIFICATION	_________
16.	DEMO: Revivication.		_________
17.	DEMO: “Returning” to an incident.	_________
18.	HCOB	25 Sep 78 I 	Int RD Series 5 QUAD COMMANDS 
			FOR INT BUTTONS	_________
19.	DRILL: The steps of the End Of Endless Int Repair RD, assessing 
	various buttons and flows, untll you feel confident doing it.	_________
20.	HCOB	11 Apr 70R 	Int RD Series 6 
	Rev. 	23.9.78 	AUDITING PAST EXTERIOR	_________
21.	HCOB	6 May 70R 	Int RD Series 7 BLOWS 	
	Rev. 	24.9.78 	AUDITING PAST EXTERIOR	_________
22.	DEMO: What happens when you audit a pc past exterior.	_________
23.	HCOB	20 Aug 70R 	Int RD Series 8 INTERIORIZATION
	Rev. 	23.9.78  	RUNDOWN MUSTS	_________
24.	HCOB	13 Jan 71R 	Int RD Series 9
	Rev. 	24.9.78 	EXTERIORIZATION	_________
25.	HCOB	16 Dec 71RB 	Int RD Series 10 C/S Series 35RB
	Rev. 	24.9.78  	INTERIORIZATION ERRORS	_________
26.	DEMO: Four of the errors that could lead to excessive Int Repair and 
	how you would prevent each.	_________
27. 	E-Meter Drill #22		_________
28. 	E-Meter Drill #25		_________
29.	HCOB	15 Nov 78 	DATING AND LOCATING	_________
30.	DRILL: (A) Dating Drill #1. (B) Locating Drill #1.	_________
31.	DRILL: (A) Dating Drill #2. (B) Locating Drill #2. 	_________
32.	HCOB	24 Sep 71R 	Int RD Series 11 INTERIORIZATION
	Rev. 	24.9.78  	RD CORRECTION DRILL:
			DATE TO BLOW/LOCATE TO BLOW	_________
33.	DRILL:
A.	Clearing “Exteriorization” on a pc.	_________
B.	Rehabbing number of times exterior.	_________
C.	Assessing the Int buttons and getting the Int button you will run.	_________
D.	Handling an Int button that is reading on an MU.	_________
E.	Handling an unreading Int button list.	_________
F.	Running an Int button, using the exact Int and R3RA commands, 
	going earlier commands and R3RA procedure to full Dianetic EP, 
	until you can do so flublessly.	_________
G.	Reassessing the Int button list, using various situations that could 
	arise.			_________
H.	The full steps Of the Int RD in sequence, handling various 
	situations, until you can run it flublessly.	_________
I.	2-Way Comm session on Int/Ext.	_________
34.	HCOB	11 Apr 71RC 	IMPORTANT, L3RF, DIANETICS 
	Re-rev. 	21.9.78	AND INT RD REPAIR LIST	_________
35.	DRILL: Assessing and handling the various items on the L3RF that 
	would apply to Int RD bogs.		_________
36.	HCOB	29 Oct 71RA	Int RD Series 12 INT RUNDOWN
	Rev. 	24.9.78 	CORRECTION LIST REVISED	_________	
37.	DRILL: Assessing and handling various situations on the Int RD 
	Correction List until you feel confident at it.	_________
38.	HCOB	24 Sep 78 II	Int RD Series 13 PREASSESSMENT, 
			AESPs AND INT	_________
39.	DEMO: Why Preassessment and AESPs are not used in running Int.	_________
40.	HCOB	17 Dec 71RB 	Int RD Series 15 C/S Series 
	Re-rev. 	24.9.78 23RB INTERIORIZATION SUMMARY	_________
41.	DEMO: The purpose of the Int Rundown.	_________
42.	HCOB	16 Oct 78 II 	Int RD Series 16 C/S Series 102
			C/S CHECKLIST OF INT ERRORS	_________
43.	DEMO: Each of the two major errors that can occur most frequently on 
	running Int and how you would prevent each.	_________
44.	DEMO: The use of the C/S Checklist for Int errors.	_________
45.	HCOB	25 Sep 78 II 	Int RD Series 14 STARRATE
			CHECKOUTS FOR 
			INTERIORIZATION RUNDOWN	_________
46. 	OK TO AUDIT INT: Do the starrate checkouts and clay demos, per Int 
	RD Series 14, for your “Okay to Audit Int”.	_________

PREPARED LISTS

GENERAL
1.	HCOB	3 Jul 71R 	AUDITING BY LISTS REVISED	_________
2.	HCOB	14 Mar 71R 	F/N EVERYTHING	_________
3.	HCOB	24 Oct 76R 	C/S Series 96R 
			DELIVERY REPAIR LISTS	_________
* 4.	HCOB	10 Jun 71 I 	C/S Series 44R 
			C/S RULES PROGRAMMING
			FROM PREPARED LISTS	_________
* 5. 	CLAY DEMO: Why you handle out-Int then out-lists then out-ruds as 
	covered in C/S Series 44R.		_________

C/S 53
6.	HCOB	24 Nov 73RD	C/S Series 53RL LF
	Rev. 	30.10.78		_________
7.	HCOB	24 Nov 73RD	C/S Series 53RL SF
	Rev. 	30.10.78		_________
8.	HCOB	30 Oct 78 	C/S Series 53 USE OF	_________
9.	HCOB	13 Dec 78R 	PC SET-UPS AND C/S 53	_________
10.	DEMO: The purpose of the C/S 53.	_________
11.	DEMO: What situation and type of pc calls for a C/S 53 SF and what 
	situation and type of pc calls for a C/S 53 LF.	_________
12.	DRILL: How a read on a question concerning Dianetics is handled on a 
	Clear, OT or Dianetic Clear.		_________
13.	DRILL: Handling each line of the C/S 53 LF.	_________
14.	DRILL: Handllng each line of the C/S 53 SF.	_________
 
LX LISTS
15.	HCOB	25 Nov 71 II 	RESISTIVE CASES FORMER
	Rev. 	21.9.74 	THERAPY	_________
16.	HCOB	9 Jun 60 	THE BASIC ASSUMPTIONS OF
			SCIENTOLOGY VERSUS OVERTS	_________
17.	HCOB	20 Sep 78 II 	LX LISTS HANDLING	_________
18.	HCOB	2 Aug 69R 	“LX” LISTS 
	Rev. 	4.9.78		_________
19.	HCOB	5 Nov 69R 	LX 3 (ATTITUDES)  
	Rev. 	4.9.78 	(USED BEFORE LX 2)	_________
20.	HCOB	3 Aug 69R 	LX 2
	Rev. 	22.8.78		_________
21.	HCOB	9 Aug 69R 	LX 1 (CONDITIONS) 
	Rev. 	21.8.78 
	Reiss. 	4.11.78		_________
22.	DEMO: How the LX Lists handle out of valenceness.	_________
23.	DEMO: When 220 H is used.	_________
24.	DRILL: LX 3 Handling.		_________
25.	DRILL: LX 2 Handling.		_________
26.	DRILL: LX 1 Handling.		_________
27.	DRILL: 220 H Handling.		_________

GREEN FORM
* 28.	HCOB	8 Dec 78 II 	GREEN FORM AND EXPANDED 	
			GREEN FORM 40RD, USE OF	_________
29.	HCOB	7 Apr 70RB 	GREEN FORM	_________
30.	DEMO: What kind of case manifestations a GF is used to handle.	_________
31.	HCOB	30 Jun 71RB 	EXPANDED GREEN FORM 40RD	_________
32.	DEMO: What kind of case manifestations a GF 40 is used to handle.	_________
33.	DRILL: Handling each line of the Green Form.	_________
34.	DRILL: Handling each line of the Green Form Expanded.	_________

L1X (HIGH/LOW TA LIST)
35.	HCOB	1 Jan 72RB 	L1X HIGH-LOW TA LIST REVISED
	Rev. 	10.2.77		_________
36.	DRILL: Handling each line of the L1X.	_________

REPAIR CORRECTION
37.	HCOB	16 Oct 78 	REPAIR CORRECTION LIST	_________
38.	DEMO: When the repair correction list is done.	_________
39.	DRILL: Handling each line of the Repair Correction List. 	_________

PRACTICAL REQUIREMENT

1. 	FES and Program a folder.		_________

LEVEL F AUDITING REQUIREMENTS

1. 	LISTING & NULLING VERIFICATION AND CORRECTION:	_________
	A. Verify and correct L&N lists, PTS interviews, why finding, etc. to a 
	     good result with consistent well dones on your auditing of the action.

2. 	PTS HANDLING:		_________
	A. Do a full PTS handling on a pc using whatever PTS handling tech is 
	     needed to produce a good result and fully handle the PTS condition.

3. 	INT/EXT HANDLING:		_________
	A. FES of an Int RD and any repairs of Int including an Int Rundown 
	     Table. 
	B. Audit an Int RD or End of Endless Int Repair RD to EP of Rundown. 

4. 	C/S 53:			_________
	A. Handle a C/S 53 Short Form or a C/S 53 Long Form to EP of the 
	     action.

5. 	REPAIR PROGRAM:		_________
	A. Audit a Repair Program to EP of repair.

6. 	PREPARED LISTS:		_________
	A. Audit at least 5 of the following lists to EP of the lists:
	1. L1C
	2. WCCL
	3. LCRC
	4. L4BRA
	5. PTS RD Correction List
	6. Int RD Correction List
	7. Green Form
	8. Expanded Green Form 40ED
	9. LIX Hi-Lo TA List Revised
	10. Student Rehab List
	11. Repair correction List.

7. 	VIDEO:			_________

	A. Audit on the video to a pass (must include an assessment).

(NOTE: The auditing and practical requirements can be started as soon as the practical section for a particular action is complete.)

__________

STUDENT COURSE COMPLETION

A. 	STUDENT COMPLETION:

I have completed the requirements of this checksheet and I know and can apply the materials.

STUDENT ATTEST:	DATE:	

 I have trained this student to the best of my ability and he/she has completed the requirements of this checksheet and knows and can apply the cheeksheet data.

SUPERVISOR ATTEST:	DATE:	

I have worn my hat of “C/S as a Training Officer” and trained this student to the best of my ability and he/she has completed the auditing requirements of this checksheet and knows and can apply the checksheet data.

STUDENT C/S ATTEST:	DATE:	

B. 	STUDENT ATTEST AT C & A:

I attest: (a) I have enrolled properly on the course. (b) I have paid for the course, (c) I have studied and understand all the materials of this cheeksheet, (d) I have done all the drills on this cheeksheet, (e) I can produce the results requlred in the materials of the course.

STUDENT ATTEST:	DATE:	

C & A:	DATE:	

C. 	STUDENT INFORMED BY QUAL SEC OR C & A:

I hereby attest that I have informed the student that to make his provisional certificate permanent he will have to be interned within one year.

QUAL SEC OR C & A:	DATE:	

D. 	CERTS AND AWARDS:

1.	Issue Certificate of SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LEVEL F, HUBBARD CASE REPAIR SPECIALIST (Provisional).

C & A:	DATE:	

2.	Ensure that the student has fully completed SHSBC Levels A, B, C, D, E and F. If so, then issue Certificate of HUBBARD SENIOR SCIENTOLOGIST - CLASS VI AUDITOR (Provisional).

C & A:	DATE:	

(Route this form to Course Admin for filing in Student’s folder.)

L. RON HUBBARD
FOUNDER

As assisted by
Melanie Seider Murray
Commodore’s Messenger 
and 
Special Compilations
Unit

for the
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
of the
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY
of CALIFORNIA

BDCSC:LRH:SCU:MSM:kjm:bk 
Copyright © 1980, 1982 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD  COMMUNICATIONS  OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 7 FEBRUARY 1965
REISSUED 15 JUNE 1970
Remimeo  	(Corrected per Flag Issue 28.1.73)
Sthil Students
Assn/Org Sec Hat
HCO Sec Hat
Case Sup Hat
Ds of P Hat
Ds of T Hat
Staff Member Hat
Franchise
(issued May 1965)

Note:     Neglect of this Pol Ltr has caused great hardship on staffs, has cost countless millions and made it necessary in 1970 to engage in an all out International effort to restore basic Scientology over the world. Within 5 years after the issue of this PL with me off the lines, violation had almost destroyed orgs. “Quickie grades” entered in and denied gain to tens of thousands of cases. Therefore actions which neglect or violate this Policy Letter are HIGH CRIMES resulting in Comm Evs on ADMINISTRATORS and EXECUTIVES. It is not “entirely a tech matter” as its neglect destroys orgs and caused a 2 year slump. IT IS THE BUSINESS OF EVERY STAFF MEMBER to enforce it. 

ALL LEVELS

KEEPING SCIENTOLOGY WORKING
HCO Sec or Communicator Hat Check
on all personnel and new personnel
as taken on.

	We have some time since passed the point of achieving uniformly workable technology. 

	The only thing now is getting the technology applied. 

	If you can’t get the technology applied then you can’t deliver what’s promised. It’s as simple as that. If you can get the technology applied, you can deliver what’s promised. 

	The only thing you can be upbraided for by students or pcs is “no results”. Trouble spots occur only where there are “no results”. Attacks from governments or monopolies occur only where there are “no results” or “bad results”. 

	Therefore the road before Scientology is clear and its ultimate success is assured if the technology is applied. 

	So it is the task of the Assn or Org Sec, the HCO Sec, the Case Supervisor, the D of P, the D of T and all staff members to get the correct technology applied. 

Getting the correct technology applied consists of: 

One: Having the correct technology. 

Two: Knowing the technology. 

Three: Knowing it is correct. 
Four: Teaching correctly the correct technology. 

Five: Applying the technology. 

Six: Seeing that the technology is correctly applied. 

Seven: Hammering out of existence incorrect technology. 

Eight: Knocking out incorrect applications.

Nine: Closing the door on any possibility of incorrect technology. 

Ten: Closing the door on incorrect application. 

One above has been done. 

Two has been achieved by many. 

Three is achieved by the individual applying the correct technology in a proper manner and observing that it works that way. 

Four is being done daily successfully in most parts of the world. 

Five is consistently accomplished daily. 

Six is achieved by instructors and supervisors consistently. 

Seven is done by a few but is a weak point. 

Eight is not worked on hard enough. 

Nine is impeded by the “reasonable” attitude of the not quite bright. 

Ten is seldom done with enough ferocity. 

Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten are the only places Scientology can bog down in any area. 

	The reasons for this are not hard to find. (a) A weak certainty that it works in Three above can lead to weakness in Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten. (b) Further, the not-too-bright have a bad point on the button Self-Importance. (c) The lower the IQ, the more the individual is shut off from the fruits of observation. (d) The service facs of people make them defend themselves against anything they confront good or bad and seek to make it wrong. (e) The bank seeks to knock out the good and perpetuate the bad. 

	Thus, we as Scientologists and as an organization must be very alert to Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten.
 
	In all the years I have been engaged in research I have kept my comm lines wide open for research data. I once had the idea that a group could evolve truth. A third of Century has thoroughly disabused me of that idea. Willing as I was to accept suggestions and data, only a handful of suggestions (less than twenty) had long run value and none were major or basic; and when I did accept major or basic suggestions and used them, we went astray and I repented and eventually had to “eat crow”. 

	On the other hand there have been thousands and thousands of suggestions and writings which, if accepted and acted upon, would have resulted in the complete destruction of all our work as well as the sanity of pcs. So I know what a group of people will do and how insane they will go in accepting unworkable “technology”. By actual record the percentages are about twenty to 100,000 that a group of human beings will dream up bad technology to destroy good technology. As we could have gotten along without suggestions, then, we had better steel ourselves to continue to do so now that we have made it. This point will, of course, be attacked as “unpopular” “egotistical” and “undemocratic”. It very well may be. But it is also a survival point And I don’t see that popular measures, self- abnegation and democracy have done anything for Man but push him further into the mud. Currently, popularity endorse degraded novels, self- abnegation has filled the South East Asian jungles with stone idols and corpses, and democracy has given us inflation and income tax. 

	Our technology has not been discovered by a group. True, if the group had no supported me in many ways I could not have discovered it either. But it remains that  in its formative stages it was not discovered by a group, then group efforts, one can safely assume, will not add to it or successfully alter it in the future. I can only say this now that it is done. There remains, of course, group tabulation or co-ordination of what has been done, which will be valuable-only so long as it does not seek to alter basic principles and successful applications. 

	The contributions that were worth while in this period of forming the technology were help in the form of friendship, of defence, of organization, of dissemination, of application, of advices on results and of finance. These were great contributions and were, and are, appreciated. Many thousands contributed in this way and made us what we are. Discovery contribution was not however part of the broad picture. 

	We will not speculate here on why this was so or how I came to rise above the bank. We are dealing only in facts and the above is a fact-the group left to its own devices would not have evolved Scientology but with wild dramatization of the bank called “new ideas” would have wiped it out. Supporting this is the fact that Man has never before evolved workable mental technology and emphasizing it is the vicious technology he did evolve-psychiatry, psychology, surgery, shock treatment, whips, duress, punishment, etc, ad infinitum. 

	So realize that we have climbed out of the mud by whatever good luck and good sense, and refuse to sink back into it again. See that Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten above are ruthlessly followed and we will never be stopped. Relax them, get reasonable about it and we will perish. 

	So far, while keeping myself in complete communication with all suggestions, I have not failed on Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten in areas I could supervise closely. But it’s not good enough for just myself and a few others to work at this. 

	Whenever this control as per Seven, Eight. Nine and Ten has been relaxed the whole organizational area has failed. Witness Elizabeth, N.Y., Wichita, the early organizations and groups. They crashed only because I no longer did Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten. Then, when they were all messed up you saw the obvious “reasons” for failure. But ahead of that they ceased to deliver and that involved them in other reasons. 

	The common denominator of a group is the reactive bank. Thetans without banks have different responses. They only have their banks in common. They agree then only on bank principles. Person to person the bank is identical. So constructive ideas are individual and seldom get broad agreement in a human group. An individual must rise above an avid craving for agreement from a humanoid group to get anything decent done. The bank-agreement has been what has made Earth a Hell-and if you were looking for Hell and found Earth, it would certainly serve. War, famine, agony and disease has been the lot of Man. Right now the great governments of Earth have developed the means of frying every Man, Woman and Child on the planet. That is Bank. That is the result of Collective Thought Agreement. The decent, pleasant things on this planet come from individual actions and ideas that have somehow gotten by the Group Idea. For that matter, look how we ourselves are attacked by “public opinion” media. Yet there is no more ethical group on this planet than ourselves. 

	Thus each one of us can rise above the domination of the bank and then, as a group of freed beings, achieve freedom and reason. It is only the aberrated group, the mob, that is destructive. 

	When you don’t do Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten actively, you are working for the Bank dominated mob. For it will surely, surely (a) introduce incorrect technology and swear by it, (b) apply technology as incorrectly as possible, (c) open the door to any destructive idea, and (d) encourage incorrect application. 

	It’s the Bank that says the group is all and the individual nothing. It’s the Bank that says we must fail. 

	So just don’t play that tune. Do Seven. Eight, Nine and Ten and you will knock out of your road all the future thorns. 

	Here’s an actual example in which a senior executive had to interfere because of a pc spin:   A Case Supervisor told Instructor A to have Auditor B run Process X on Preclear C. Auditor B afterwards told Instructor A that “It didn’t work.” Instructor A was weak on Three above and didn’t really believe in Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten. So Instructor A told the Case Supervisor “Process X didn’t work on Preclear C.” Now this strikes directly at each of One to Six above in Preclear C, Auditor B, Instructor A and the Case Supervisor. It opens the door to the introduction of “new technology” and to failure. 

	What happened here? Instructor A didn’t jump down Auditor B’s throat, that’s all that happened. This is what he should have done: Grabbed the Auditor’s report and looked it over, When a higher executive on this case did so she found what the Case Supervisor and the rest missed: that. Process X increased Preclear C’s TA to 25 TA divisions for the session but that near session end Auditor B Qed and Aed with a cognition and abandoned Process X while it still gave high TA and went off running one of Auditor B’s own manufacture, which nearly spun Preclear C. Auditor B’s IQ on examination turned out to be about 75. Instructor A was found to have huge ideas of how you must never invalidate anyone, even a lunatic. The Case Supervisor was found to be “too busy with admin to have any time for actual cases”. 

	All right, there’s an all too typical example. The Instructor should have done Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten. This would have begun this way. Auditor B: “That process X didn’t work.” Instructor A: “What exactly did you do wrong?” Instant attack. “Where’s your auditor’s report for the session? Good. Look here, you were getting a lot of TA when you stopped Process X. What did you do?” Then the Pc wouldn’t have come close to a spin and all four of these would have retained certainty. 

	In a year, I had four instances in one small group where the correct process recommended was reported not to have worked. But on review found that each one had (a) increased the TA, (b) had been abandoned, and (c) had been falsely reported as unworkable. Also, despite this abuse, in each of these four cases the recommended, correct process cracked the case. Yet they were reported as not having worked! 

	Similar examples exist in instruction and these are all the more deadly as every time instruction in correct technology is flubbed, then the resulting error, uncorrected in the auditor, is perpetuated on every pc that auditor audits thereafter. So Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten are even more important in a course than in supervision of cases. 

	Here’s an example: A rave recommendation is given a graduating student “because he gets more TA on pcs than any other student on the course!” Figures of 435 TA divisions a session are reported. “Of course his model session is poor but it’s just knack he has” is also included in the recommendation. A careful review is undertake because nobody at levels O to IV is going to get that much TA on pcs. It is found that this student was never taught to read an E-Meter dial! And no instructor observed his handling of a meter and it was not discovered that he “overcompensated” nervously swinging the TA 2 or 3 divisions beyond where it needed to go to place the needle at “set”. So everyone was about to throw away standard processes and model session because this one student “got such remarkable TA”. They only read the reports and listened to the brags and never looked at this student. The pcs in actual fact were making slightly less than average gain, impeded by a rough model session and misworded processes. Thus, what was making the pcs win (actual Scientology) was hidden under a lot of departures and errors. 

	I recall one student who was squirreling on an Academy course and running a lot of off-beat whole track on other students after course hours. The academy students were in a state of electrification on all these new experiences and weren’t quickly brought under control and the student himself never was given the works on Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten so they stuck. Subsequently, this student prevented another squirrel from being straightened out and his wife died of cancer resulting from physical abuse. A hard, tough instructor at that moment could have salvaged two squirrels and saved the life of a girl. But no, students had a right to do whatever they pleased. 

	Squirreling (going off into weird practices or altering Scientology) only comes about from non-comprehension. Usually the non-comprehension is not of Scientology but some earlier contact with an off-beat humanoid practice which in its turn was not understood. 

	When people can’t get results from what they think is standard practice, they can be counted upon to squirrel to some degree. The most trouble in the past two years came from orgs where an executive in each could not assimilate straight Scientology under instruction in Scientology they were unable to define terms or demonstrate examples of principles. And the orgs where they were got into plenty of trouble. And worse, it could not be straightened out easily because neither one of these people could or would duplicate instructions. hence, a debacle resulted in two places, directly traced to failures of instruction earlier. So proper instruction is vital. The D of T and his Instructors and all Scientology Instructors must be merciless in getting Four, Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten into effective action. That one student, dumb and impossible though he may seem and of no use to anyone, may yet some day be the cause of untold upset because nobody was interested enough to make sure Scientology got home to him. 

	With what we know now, there is no student we enrol who cannot be properly trained. As an instructor, one should be very alert to slow progress and should turn the sluggards inside out personally. No system will do it, only you or me with our sleeve rolled up can crack the back of bad studenting and we can only do it on an individual student, never on a whole class only. He’s slow = something is awful wrong. Take fast action to correct it. Don’t wait until next week. By then he’s got other messes stuck to him. If you can’t graduate them with their good sense appealed to and wisdom shining graduate them in such a state of shock they’ll have nightmares if they contemplate squirreling. Then experience will gradually bring about Three in them and they’ll know better than to chase butterflies when they should be auditing. 

	When somebody enrols, consider he or she has joined up for the duration of the universe- never permit an “open-minded” approach. If they’re going to quit let then quit fast. If they enroled, they’re aboard, and if they’re aboard, they’re here on the same terms as the rest of us- win or die in the attempt. Never let them be half-minded about being Scientologists. The finest organizations in history have been tough dedicated organizations. Not one namby-pamby bunch of panty-waist dilettantes have ever made anything. It’s a tough universe. The social veneer makes it seem mild. But only the tigers survive-and even they have a hard time. We’ll survive because we are tough and are dedicated. When we do instruct somebody properly he becomes more and more tiger. When we instruct half-mindedly and are afraid to offend, scared to enforce, we don’t make students into good Scientologists and that let’s everybody down. When Mrs. Pattycake comes to us to be taught, turn that wandering doubt in he eye into a fixed, dedicated glare and she’ll win and we’ll all win. Humour her and we all die a little. The proper instruction attitude is, “You’re here so you’re a Scientologist Now we’re going to make you into an expert auditor no matter what happens. We’d rather have you dead that incapable.” Fitting that into the economics of the situation and lack of adequate time and you see the cross we have to bear. 

	But we won’t have to bear it forever. The bigger we get the more economics and time we will have to do our job. And the only things which can prevent us from getting that big fast are areas in from One to Ten. Keep those in mind and we’ll be able to grow. Fast. And as we grow our shackles will be less and less. Failing to keep One to  Ten, will make us grow less. 

	So the ogre which might eat us up is not the government or the High Priests. It’s our possible failure to retain and practise our technology. 

	An Instructor or Supervisor or Executive must challenge with ferocity instances of “unworkability”. They must uncover what did happen, what was run and what was done or not done.                        

	If you have One and Two, you can only acquire Three for all by making sure of all the rest. 

	We’re not playing some minor game in Scientology. It isn’t cute or something to do for lack of something better. 

	The whole agonized future of this planet, every Man, Woman and Child on it, and your own destiny for the next endless trillions of years depends on what you do here and now with and in Scientology. 

	This is a deadly serious activity. And if we miss getting out of the trap now, we may never again have another chance. 

	Remember, this is a our first chance to do so in all the endless trillions of years of the past. Don’t muff it now because it seems unpleasant or unsocial to do Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten. 

	Do them and we’ll win.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD
                                        					Founder

LRH:nt.rd 
Copyright © 1965, 1970 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 17 JUNE 1970

Remimeo
Applies to all
SHs and	URGENT AND
Academies	IMPORTANT
Franchises

TECHNICAL DEGRADES

(This PL and HCO PL Feb 7, 1965 must be made part of every study pack as the first items and must be listed on checksheets. )

Any checksheet in use or in stock which carries on it any degrading statement must be destroyed and issued without qualifying statements.

Example: Level 0 to IV Checksheets SH carry “A. Background Material—This section is included as an historical background, but has much interest and value to the student. Most of the processes are no longer used, having been replaced by more modern technology. The student is only required to read this material and ensure he leaves no misunderstood.” This heading covers such vital things as TRs, Op Pro by Dup! The statement is a falsehood.

These checksheets were not approved by myself, all the material of the Academy and SH courses IS in use.

Such actions as this gave us “Quickie Grades”, ARC Broke the field and downgraded the Academy and SH Courses.

A condition of TREASON or cancellation of certificates or dismissal and a full investigation of the background of any person found guilty, will be activated in the case of anyone committing the following HIGH CRIMES.

1. 	Abbreviating an official Course in Dianetics and Scientology so as to lose the full theory, processes and effectiveness of the subjects.

2. 	Adding comments to checksheets or instructions labelling any material “background” or “not used now” or “old” or any similar action which will result in the student not knowing, using, and applying the data in which he is being trained.

3. 	Employing after 1 Sept 1970 any checksheet for any course not authorized by myself and the SO Organizing Bureau Flag.

4. 	Failing to strike from any checksheet remaining in use meanwhile any such comments as “historical”, “background”, “not used”, “old”, etc. or VERBALLY STATING IT TO STUDENTS.

5. 	Permitting a pc to attest to more than one grade at a time on the pc’s own determinism without hint or evaluation.

6. 	Running only one process for a grade between 0 to IV.

7. 	Failing to use all processes for a level.

8. 	Boasting as to speed of delivery in a session, such as “I put in Grade zero in 3 minutes.” Etc.

9. 	Shortening time of application of auditing for financial or laborsaving considerations.

10. 	Acting in any way calculated to lose the technology of Dianetics and Scientology to use or impede its use or shorten its materials or its application.

REASON: The effort to get students through courses and get pcs processed in orgs was considered best handled by reducing materials or deleting processes from grades. The pressure exerted to speed up student completions and auditing completions was mistakenly answered by just not delivering.

The correct way to speed up a student’s progress is by using 2 way comm and applying the study materials to students.

The best way to really handle pcs is to ensure they make each level fully before going on to the next and repairing them when they do not.

The puzzle of the decline of the entire Scientology network in the late 60s is entirely answered by the actions taken to shorten time in study and in processing by deleting materials and actions.

Reinstituting full use and delivery of Dianetics and Scientology is the answer to any recovery.

The product of an org is well taught students and thoroughly audited pcs. When the product vanishes, so does the org. The orgs must survive for the sake of this planet.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD
                                        					Founder

LRH:nt.rd 
Copyright © 1970 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD  COMMUNICATIONS  OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 14 FEBRUARY 1965
(Reissued on 7 June 1967, with the word
Remimeo                              “instructor” replaced by “supervisor”.)
All Hats
BPI
SAFEGUARDING TECHNOLOGY

	For some years we have had a word “squirreling”. It means altering Scientology, off-beat practices. It is a bad thing. I have found a way to explain why. 

	Scientology is a workable system. This does not mean it is the best possible system or a perfect system. Remember and use that definition. Scientology is a workable system. 

	In fifty thousand years of history on this planet alone, Man never evolved a workable system. It is doubtful if, in foreseeable history, he will ever evolve another. 

	Man is caught in a huge and complex labyrinth. To get out of it requires that he follow the closely taped path of Scientology. 

	Scientology will take him out of the labyrinth. But only if he follows the exact markings in the tunnels. 

	It has taken me a third of a century in this lifetime to tape this route out. 

	It has been proven that efforts by Man to find different routes came to nothing. It is also a clear fact that the route called Scientology does lead out of the labyrinth Therefore it is a workable system, a route that can be travelled. 

	What would you think of a guide who, because his party said it was dark and the road rough and who said another tunnel looked better, abandoned the route he knew would lead out and led his party to a lost nowhere in the dark. You’d think he was a pretty wishy-washy guide. 

	What would you think of a supervisor who let a student depart from procedure the supervisor knew worked. You’d think he was a pretty wishy-washy supervisor. 

	What would happen in a labyrinth if the guide let some girl stop in a pretty canyon and left her there forever to contemplate the rocks? You’d think he was a pretty heartless guide. You’d expect him to say at least, “Miss, those rocks may be pretty, but the road out doesn’t go that way.” 

	All right, how about an auditor who abandons the procedure which will make his preclear eventually clear just because the preclear had a cognition? 

	People have following the route mixed up with “the right to have their own ideas.” Anyone is certainly entitled to have opinions and ideas and cognitions—so long as these do not bar the route out for self and others. 

	Scientology is a workable system. It white tapes the road out of the labyrinth If there were no white tapes marking the right tunnels, Man would just go on wandering around and around the way he has for eons, darting off on wrong roads, going in circles, ending up in the sticky dark, alone. 

	Scientology, exactly and correctly followed, takes the person up and out of the mess. 

	So when you see somebody having a ball getting everyone to take peyote because it restimulates prenatals, know he is pulling people off the route. Realize he is squirreling. He isn’t following the route. 

	Scientology is a new thing- it is a road out. There has not been one. Not all the salesmanship in the world can make a bad route a proper route. And an awful lot of bad routes are being sold. Their end product is further slavery, more darkness, more misery. 

	Scientology is the only workable system Man has It has already taken people toward higher I.Q., better lives and all that. No other system has. So realize that it has no competitor. 

	Scientology is a workable system. It has the route taped. The search is done. Now the route only needs to be walked. 

	So put the feet of students and preclears on that route. Don’t let them off of it no matter how fascinating the side roads seem to them. And move them on up and out. 

	Squirreling is today destructive of a workable system. 

	Don’t let your party down. By whatever means, keep them on the route. And they’ll be free. If you don’t, they won’t. 

	L. RON HUBBARD 
	Founder 

LRH:nt:rd
Copyright © 1965
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 2 JANUARY 1967

Qual Personnel
Tech Personnel
Clearing Course
Students
SHSBC Students

DATING—FORBIDDEN WORDS

THE WORDS “MORE”—”LESS” OCCUR IN THE BANK AND THEIR USE IN DATING IS FORBIDDEN.

In The Book of E-Meter Drills the patter for Track Dating, E-Meter Drill 25, containing the words “more”—”less”, has to be changed to “GREATER THAN”— “LESSER THAN”.

E-Meter Drill 22, E-Meter Hidden Date, This Life, remains unchanged.

Anyone who is using the words “earlier”—”later” in dating, words which are not to be found in any E-Meter Drill, is not only guilty of alter-ising Tech, but will grind his student or preclear into the Bank, since these words also occur in the Bank and are therefore forbidden.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD
                                        					Founder

LRH:jp.cden 
Copyright © 1967 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 22 MARCH 1967 
Remimeo 
Level 0
IMPORTANT

ADMIN KNOW-HOW
ALTER-IS AND DEGRADED BEINGS

Alteration of orders and tech is worse than non-compliance.

Alter-is is a covert avoidance of an order. Although it is apparently often brought about by non-comprehension, the non-comprehension itself and failure to mention it, is an avoidance of orders.

Very degraded beings alter-is. Degraded ones refuse to comply without mentioning it. Beings in fair condition try to comply but remark their troubles to get help when needed. Competent higher toned beings understand orders and comply if possible but mainly do their jobs without needing lots of special orders.

Degraded beings find any instruction painful as they have been painfully indoctrinated with violent measures in the past. They therefore alter-is any order or don’t comply.

Thus in auditing pcs or in org, where you find alter-is (covert non-compliance) and non-compliance, given sensible and correct tech or instructions, you are dealing with a degraded low level being and should act accordingly.

One uses very simple low level processes on a degraded being, gently.

In admin, orgs and especially the Tech Div where a staff member alter-ises, or fails to comply you are also dealing with a degraded being but one who is too much a pc to be a staff member. He cannot be at cause and staff members must be at cause. So he or she should not be on staff.

This is a primary senior datum regulating all handling of pcs and staff members.

A degraded being is not a suppressive as he can have case gain. But he is so PTS that he works for suppressives only. He is sort of a super-continual PTS beyond the reach really of a simple S & D and handled only at Sect 3 OT Course.

Degraded beings, taking a cue from SP associates, instinctively resent, hate and seek to obstruct any person in charge of anything or any Big Being.

Anyone issuing sensible orders is the first one resented by a degraded being.

A degraded being lies to his seniors, avoids orders covertly by alter-is, fails to comply, supplies only complex ideas that can’t ever work (obstructive) and is a general area of enturbulence, often mild seeming or even “cooperative”, often even flattering, sometimes merely dull but consistently alter-ising or non-complying.

This datum appeared during higher level research and is highly revelatory of earlier unexplained phenomena—the pc who changes commands or doesn’t do them, the worker who can’t get it straight or who is always on a tea break.
In an area where suppression has been very heavy for long periods people become degraded beings. However, they must have been so before already due to track incidents.

Some thetans are bigger than others. None are truly equal. But the degraded being is not necessarily a natively bad thetan. He is simply so PTS and has been for so long that it requires our highest level tech to finally undo it after he has scaled up all our grades.

Degraded beings are about 18 to 1 over Big Beings in the human race (minimum ratio). So those who keep things going are few. And those who will make it without the steam of the few in our orgs behind them are zero. At the same time, we can’t have a world full of them and still make it. So we have no choice.

And we can handle them, even when they cannot serve, at higher levels.

This is really OT data but we need it at lower levels to get the job done.

								L. RON HUBBARD 
								Founder 

LRH:jp.rd 
Copyright © 1967 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 30 JUNE 1967
Remimeo

EVIDENCES OF AN ABERRATED AREA

1. 	Bad memory in that area.
2. 	Comes up with wrong answers for that area which give
3. 	PTPs on that subject (since one’s answers are wrong).
4. 	ARC Breaks on that subject (as the trauma gives the opportunity for B P Chg).
5. 	Is emotional on the subject (continuous B P Chg).
6. 	Can’t confront its subject matter (as represents painful experience).
7. 	Is ill in the body part or part of existence which was injured.
8. 	His mest in that area is “sick” (enmested), as degraded by trauma.
9. 	Is inattentive on that subject.
10. 	Has perception lapses on things similar to the objects in the traumatic area.
11. 	Detests or ignores or can’t have the objects similar to those in the traumatic experience.
12. 	Acts irrationally on the subject that is uncleared.
13. 	Is regarded as odd on that subject (not normal behavior).
14. 	Resents any criticism of self regarding the subject or area.
15. 	Ridicules the subject or object.
16. 	Cannot understand similar objects or experiences.
17. 	Commits overts on the subject or object.
18. 	Justifies any overt committed.
19. 	Thinks critical thoughts of the subject or object.
20. 	Dwells on the subject or object continuously.
21. 	Desires to get subject or object out of mind.
22. 	Wants processing for the subject, area or object.
23. 	Reacts on the needle when any near subject word is mentioned.
24. 	Reacts on the Tone Arm when any close version of the word is mentioned.
25. 	Becomes ill when invalidating the subject or object.
26. 	Has withholds concerning subject or object.
27. 	Doesn’t want to discuss subject or object.
28. 	Alters data about the subject or object.
29. 	Tells lies concerning the subject or object.
30. 	Subjects pc got low grades on, can’t understand.
31. 	And most important of all, attempts to stop things in that area and uses innumerable methods, covert and overt to do so.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD
                                        					Founder

LRH :jp.cden
Copyright © 1967
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 19 AUGUST 1967 
Level IV 
and up 
Remimeo 
Scn Execs
THE SUPREME TEST

THE SUPREME TEST OF A THETAN IS HIS ABILITY TO MAKE THINGS GO RIGHT.

This of course is a rather savage and brutal datum for it thrusts aside all justification, reasonableness, excuses and even does not take into account the size or obstacles of the opposition.

But please note that the datum is not “are things all right around him” as this is a passive test and could mean only that he was simply sitting still.

Whether things are currently all right or not is beside the point. The thetan who is making things go right may be tackling a mountain of confusion and of course things are not all right because what he is attacking is mainly wrong. It is whether or not he is making things go right in spite of “hell or high water” that is the test.

Many beings live lives of quiet correctness without ever once making anything do anything. Things around them just happen to be orderly. The social system props them up. But someday—bang—the society gets into a turmoil which knocks out the props. THEN we see that there were too few present who could MAKE things go right and that is the end of the society. Thus died all old civilizations. Their people lived in a system correctness and things went right only so long as nothing was going wrong. Then one day things go wrong. These sophisticated but weak beings never were able to MAKE things go right and so the whole society collapses.

One might also ask, “What is meant by right?”

This would be forwarding a purpose not destructive to the majority of the dynamics.

--------------

Aberration is by definition “a crooked line”. It is from the Latin aberratio, “a wandering from” and from the Latin errare, to wander or to err.

A sane person thinks, looks and sees in straight lines. Black is black, white is white. The aberrated person looks toward black and wanders off in his gaze to something else and makes the error of saying it is “grey”.

You can consider aberration in a passive way (supinely, of no force or action). A person is sane or not sane. He thinks straight or crookedly.

Now consider aberration in a forceful way. A person looks, then an opposing force to him pushes aside his gaze or distracts it. But the really sane, forceful person looks right on through and past the opposition and sees what is there anyway.

Let us take real action. Mr. Q rolls a ball from A toward B. En route Opposition X pushes the ball aside toward C. Mr. Q then shoves the ball toward C and says the reason he did not arrive properly at B was because ......
Mr. S rolls a ball from A toward B. Opposition X diverts the ball toward C. Mr. S pulls the ball back into line and despite, over and through Opposition X arrives at B anyway.

You can see that Mr. Q in the first example is willing to be aberrated or pushed aside or at least does not contest it enough. Mr. Q is aberrated.

Mr. S on the other hand was not willing to be diverted and went right on to B. Mr. S is not aberrated.

Now society, being mainly suppressive, observes that Mr. Q never has much commotion around him. True, he never arrives and gets nothing done, but he isn’t noisy so he is “okay”.

Mr. S on the other hand makes an awful row and bashes Opposition X on the head and snarls his way onward toward B. Society says he is a bad fellow because he has fusses. Of course he also gets something done. But in a decadent society men are measured by how pleasant they are, not how effective they are, so Mr. S is regarded as a bit “mad”. YET when trouble comes it is only the Mr. Ss who will save the day while the Mr. Qs all give up and die.

There is another point here, however. That is purpose. The difference between one thetan’s forward thrust and another’s is PURPOSE, validity of.

A madman can also go from A toward B relentlessly where B is a totally undesirable and destructive point. But in actual practice, real madmen never really arrive at the B they wanted to arrive at. A madman only goes toward but never really arrives. So he only makes everything go wrong.

B must be a desirable point not destructive to a majority of the dynamics for rightness to occur.

So there is the savage and bare datum:

THE SUPREME TEST OF A THETAN IS THE ABILITY TO MAKE THINGS GO RIGHT.

People who explain how wrong it is all going and who have reasons why and WHO AREN’T PUTTING IT RIGHT are the real crazy people in the universe. The only ones crazier than they are are the ones who are quite happy to have everything fail and go wrong with no protest from them. And the only ones even worse are those who work endlessly to make things go wrong and prevent anything from going right and oppose all efforts instinctively.

Fortunately there are a few around who DO make things go right in spite of everything and anyone.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD
                                        					Founder

LRH:jp.cden 
Copyright © 1967 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 15 AUGUST 1967

Remimeo
DISCIPLINE
SPs AND ADMIN
HOW STATISTICS CRASH

One of the ways an SP works to stop an activity or to halt an affluence is to pick out key personnel and spread wild, false and alarming stories about them.

Another way, often used in conjunction with the above, is to pound a key executive with alarming entheta about staff, divisions or activities. This urges the key executive to take uncalled for action which upsets things and which may lead to the dismissal of valuable staff.

Also it is a symptom of an org under external pressure to come down on its own personnel rather than on the public or on real SPs.

SPs tend to vanish in memory since they speak in generalities. “Always” “everyone” salt their language so that when you say, “Who told you?” in tracing a rumor, it is hard to remember since “everyone” seems to have said it. Actually the SP who did say it used “everyone” in his comm so often as to become in memory “everyone” .

A GOOD MANAGER IGNORES RUMOR AND ONLY ACTS ON STATISTICS.

Had I heeded over the years any rumormonger, we would have no orgs. I generally don’t listen and if I do, only go so far as inspecting stats.

It is easy to discipline staff and hard to discipline the public. A LAZY executive only disciplines staff. It takes more confront to tackle the public.

When an executive listens to rumor and bad things about his fellow staff members without looking at the actual production statistics, that executive can harm the org badly.

I have never tried to make staff members “be good”. I have only tried to make them produce and wear their hats.

Our whole statistic system exists to end excessive discipline of valuable staff members.

To me a staff member whose stats are up can do no wrong.

I am not interested in wog morality. I am only interested in getting the show on the road and keeping it there.

Also I detest having to discipline anyone for anything, particularly a Scientologist. And the only discipline I use is to hold the fort until people are clear enough to see the light. They always do. All misconduct comes from aberration.

However if anyone is getting industrious trying to enturbulate or stop Scientology or its activities I can make Captain Bligh look like a Sunday school teacher. There is probably no limit on what I would do to safeguard Man’s only road to freedom against persons who, disdaining processing, seek to stop Scientology or hurt Scientologists.

I well know Man’s fixation on trying to make “everybody good”. Which means, really, inactive. The best men I have had in wars routinely have been continually arrested and generally frowned on by “shore patrols”, “military police”, etc. To the body politic a quiet person is the ideal. When the guns begin to go, these quiet ones are
 all hiding and only the active ones are there to fight. I often wonder what would happen to a state if it did achieve its apparent goal of making one and all inactive little sheep.

So I don’t care what men or women do if they just wear their hats and keep their stats up. Only when Scientology is being slowed or stopped do you find me rigging up the tools of discipline.

In actual fact I rather hold the person who is inactive because he is afraid of punishment in contempt. I respect only those who are strong enough to be decent without the “self protection” of evil.

I use disciplhze to hold the edges of a channel, not to stop the flow.

SPs LOVE to coax those with power to slay. As the basic ambition of any SP is “EVERYBODY DEAD SO I CAN BE SAFE” he or she will use all manner of lies and mechanisms to excite a thirst for discipline in those in power.

If I ever heed any “Kill everybody” advice it is to put the adviser up against a brick wall.

All evil stems from aberration. And it can be pretty evil. And awfully aberrated. The only road out from evil is processing. Therefore one must protect the road to freedom as the answer to evil and must protect as well all those who are working to keep the road in.

The world will never become good because of discipline or oppression of evil. All discipline presupposes that the person being disciplined wants to survive. The truly evil only want to succumb so discipline threat is no answer. The truly evil LOVE pain and suffering and deprivation. So it coerces nothing and improves nothing when you seek to solve all evil with discipline. Only the already decent can be disciplined. It only obliges the evil ones. So all you can do really is to get the evil ones parked off the lines.

The Executive in disciplining is concerned with those who would stop or hinder the flow and those who are just plain idle or stupid. So he severely leaves alone all up stats and only acts to move the suppressives off the lines and not let the idle and stupid slow the tlow. An executive could never make the world reform by discipline alone. He can by processing. So his only use of discipline is to continue to make processing possible. It’s as simple as that.

L. RON HUBBARD 
Founder

LRH:jp.cden 
Copyright © 1967 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 1 OCTOBER 1967

Remimeo
ADMIN-KNOW HOW
USES OF ORGS

There are two uses (violently opposed to each other) to which Scn orgs can be put. They are:

1. 	To forward the advance of self and all dynamics toward total survival.

2. 	To use the great power and control of an org over others to defend oneself.

When a decent being goes to work in an org he uses 1.

When a suppressive goes to work in an org he uses 2.

When you get in Ethics the decent one raises his necessity level and measures up. The suppressive type blows (leaves).

It is of vital interest to all of us that we have orgs that serve to increase survival on all dynalnics. And that we prevent orgs being used as means to oppress others.

The answer, oddly enough is to GET IN ETHIC’S exactly on policy and correctly. And we will advance.

L. RON HUBBARD 
Founder

LRH:jp.cden 
Copyright © 1967 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 16 OCTOBER 1967
Remimeo

Admin Know-How # 16
SUPPRESSIVES, AND THE ADMINISTRATOR
HOW TO DETECT SPs AS AN ADMINISTRATOR

There are three areas of detection which an Administrator can utilize in the detection of a Suppressive Person.

These are:

1. 	No Ethics change

2. 	No Case change

3. 	No Admin change.

An SP (Suppressive Person) is unable to change because he cannot, himself, confront. He is badly “out of valence”. Therefore, not being able to look at things directly he is unable to erase them or even see what they are. Such people often have a curtain of pictures they look at instead of the universe around them. They do not see a building. They see a picture of a building in front of the building. They are not at the point from which they view things.

Thus they are peculiar in that they can’t changes

The three principal zones in a Scientology org are

1. 	Ethics

2. 	Tech

3. 	Admin.

We have the natural laws of these subjects, each one.

If you can get in Ethics you can get in Scn technology. If you call get in Scn technology you can get in Admin. If you can get all three in you have an org and have expansion.

If you can’t get in tech, Ethics is out. If you can’t get in Admin, both tech and ethics are out.

The sequence things that have to be “gotten in” to make an org is 1st Ethics, 2nd Tech, 3rd Admin.

Where one of these goes out, the org contracts.

We have these three sciences. To really handle things one has to be a master of all three, even to live a good personal life.

By “get in” we mean get it applied and effective.

We live in a very woggy world at this time. The wog is so out-Ethics he is living on what amounts to a criminal society.

When we try to get tech in on the planet we run into the out-Ethics areas and this is the real source of our troubles where we have any. We are getting in tech before we get in Ethics. It can be done (obviously, since we are doing it). But it is a heavy strain at best.

Just because we do not at once get Ethics in on the planet does not mean we can’t get any tech in.

By handling small sectors, beginning with self and Scn groups and orgy we can continue to repeat the cycles of three Ethics, Tech, Admits Gradually we enlarge the numbers we have and gradually our sphere ok Ethics Tech-Admill expands. And we one day have Ethics in on the planet, Tech in on the planet, Admin in on the planet.

The only stumbling block is the SP. This person (about 10%, of the population) is unable to change. We can process them if we can get them to sit still.

But these are the hidden booby traps which make one’s life, one’s family, one’s org, one’s nation, one’s planet a rough-rough proposition. Ninety percent of the people say, “Ethics great, Tech great, Admin great.” And away we go.

Ten percent say, “Horrible horrible horrible.” And cannot either see or arrange. They are the true psychotics no matter how “sane” they sound. The people in institutions are generally only their victims.

This 10 percent, one must be able to detect and weed out so they don’t contaminate areas we are bringing up in ethics, tech and admin.

Our policy is we don’t waste time on them. To cater to them is to betray 90% of the population. So we set them aside for another day.

We get them off lines, out of orgs and to one side.

The true character of these people is usually masked in many ways. They are expert only in deception and can take on any guise.

To listen to them one would suppose he was talking to his best friend sometimes. Except the knife in one’s back is also driven in by them.

We have much tech to describe them.

But one does not have to be an auditor with a meter to find these people.

An administrator only needs to know the three things about them.

1. 	No change in Ethics.

2. 	No change in Case.

3. 	No change in Admin.

These people have

1. 	Thick Ethics files.

2.	Thick (or no) case files.

3. 	Thick full (or no) comm baskets.

If you just dismissed anyone who had all three you would have gotten rid of an SP.

It works this way. When you start to get in Ethics most people “learn the ropes” fast. They may have a few down conditions and Chits or even courts or comm evs but you see the frequency dwindles and eventually vanishes or nearly so.

When you start to get in tech on a person, it may be a hard haul for a while and then it begins to level out and get easier.

When you start to get in Admin the confusion around some person may be great but after a while the lines and policies straighten out.

None are good little angels. But 90% make progress in these 3 fields of Ethics, Tech and Admin.

The SP does NOT make any consistent progress at all and lapses every time.

As only 10% of the people then are making nearly all the tough work in Ethics, Tech and Admin, the thing to do then is to get them off the lines rather than betray 90%.

And the SP is detectable in ALL THREE AREAS. It needs no microscope to find out who on a staff has the seniors working so hard for so little gain.

Their ethics file is huge, their case file either doesn’t exist at all or is very fat; their comm lines are jammed, their policy is out and their stats are on the bottom eternally.

So as an administrator you can detect SPs. You better had. YOUR OWN STATS WILL BE DOWN TO THE DEGREE YOU FAIL TO DETECT THEM.

Just go to your files and look at the desks and sack whoever satisfies all three conditions above and you can’t miss and WILL be able to breathe.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH :jp.cden 
Copyright © 1967 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 9 JANUARY 1968
Remimeo	
Tech Personnel
Qual Personnel
Students	
MONEY PROCESS

The command of the Money Process is:

MOCK UP A WAY TO WASTE MONEY.

This is run until a person can have money.

Also one may add to the Money Process, Clay Table all Org money flows.

All to Free Needle.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH :jp.rd 							
Copyright © 1968	                  				
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED	                   

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 12 MARCH 1968

Remimeo

MISTAKES, ANATOMY OF

In the presence of Suppression, one makes mistakes.

People making mistakes or doing stupid things is evidence that an SP exists in that vicinity.

								L. RON HUBBARD 
								Founder 

LRH:jc.cden 
Copyright © 1968 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 20 MAY 1968
CORRECTED & REISSUED MARCH 1974
Remimeo	
(Only change is in this type sty/e)

OVERT-MOTIVATOR SEQUENCE

DIANETICS COURSES
LEVEL TWO
SOLO AUDIT
OT SECTIONS

There was an important discovery made in 1952 on the subject of engrams which did not get included in “Book One”, Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health.

This was the “Overt-Motivator sequence of ENGRAMS”.

AN OVERT, in Dianetics and Scientology, is an aggressive or destructive ACT by the individual against one or another of the 8 dynamics (self, family, group, Mankind, animals or plants, MEST, Life or the Infinite).

A MOTIVATOR is an aggressive or destructive act received by the person or one of the dynamics.

The viewpoint from which the act is viewed resolves whether the act is an overt or a motivator.

The reason it is called a “Motivator” is because it tends to prompt that one pays it back—it “motivates” a new overt.

When one has done something bad to someone or something one tends to believe it must have been “motivated”.

When one has received something bad, he also may tend to feel he must have done something to deserve it.

The above points are true. The actions and reactions of people on the subject are often very falsified.

People go about believing they were in an auto accident when in actual fact they caused one.

Also people may believe they caused an accident when they were only in one.

Some people, on hearing of a death, at once believe they must have killed the person even though they were far away.

Police in large cities have people turn up and confess to almost every murder as a routine.

One doesn’t have to be crazy to be subject to the Overt-Motivator sequence. It is not only used on him continually by others, it also is a basic part of his own “case”.

There are two extreme stages of Overt-Motivator phenomena. One is a person who gives up only motivators (always done to him) and the other is the person who “has done only overts” (done to others).

In running engrams you will find

1. 	All overt engrams that hang up (won’t audit easily) have also a motivator engram as the same or different incident.

2. 	All motivator engrams that hang up have an overt engram in the same or different incident.

The two types of engrams then are OVERT Engrams and MOTIVATOR Engrams.

Example of Overt Engram—SHOOTING A DOG.

Example of Motivator Engram—BEING BITTEN BY A DOG.

The rule is that the SUBJECT MATTER MUST BE SIMILAR.

They can be in different points in time.

When you can’t run out (erase) a dog bite engram, why then you find the “shoot dog” engram.

PSYCHOSOMATIC ILLS OR ABERRATIONS THAT DO NOT RESOLVE BY RUNNING ONE SIDE, USUALLY RESOLVE BY FINDING AND RUNNING THE OTHER.

When you can’t erase an engram about shooting a dog, why then there’s a bitten by dog.

It’s all very simple really. There are always two sides to the coin. If one won’t run, you try the other.

BASICS

Finding the basic engram on a chain also applies to finding the basic overt or basic motivator engram.

Engrams then hang up (won’t run out) when

(a) 	The other type needs to be run and

(b) 	The one found has earlier engrams on it.

NONEXTANT ENGRAMS

An “engram” sometimes didn’t exist. A pc can be trying to run being run over by a car when he never was.  What needs to be done, when the incident won’t run, is get the pc’s incident of running over somebody.  It also works in reverse. A pc can be trying to run an engram of running over somebody when he was in fact only run over himself and never did run over anyone.

So BOTH engrams can exist and be run or only one side exists and can be run or with a heavy foul-up on overts and motivators, one side can be non-factual and won’t run because only the other side exists.

It is easy to visualize this as a matter of flows. An overt of course is an Outflow and a motivator is an Inflow.

SECONDARIES

It may never have been said that secondaries always sit squarely on incidents of actual pain and unconsciousness.

Also secondaries can exist on the overt-motivator sequence pattern just as in engrams.

This is the cause of frozen emotions or “unemotional” people. Also some people complain they can’t feel anymore.

This works out by overt-motivator sequence. A person in grief over loss (grief is always loss) who then can’t run it has caused grief and that overt-secondary can be run.

Also a person misemotional over causing grief has been caused grief. It works both ways with ALL POINTS ON THE TONE SCALE.

The last is a newer discovery and wasn’t known to early Dianeticists.

The Overt-Motivator Engram phenomena did not receive adequate dissemination. The principle applied to secondaries has not before been released.  It is basically Dianetic Engram running that resolves all cases in the end so one had better be pretty good at auditing Engrams and Secondaries, Motivator and Overt both.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH:jp.nt.cden:jh						
Copyright © 1968, 1974						
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 18 JUNE 1968

Remimeo
Flag Order
ETHICS

The Purpose of Ethics is

TO REMOVE COUNTER INTENTIONS FROM THE ENVIRONMENT.

And having accomplished that the purpose becomes

TO REMOVE OTHER INTENTIONEDNESS FROM THE ENVIRONMENT.

Thus progress can be made by all.

Many mechanisms can exist to mask a counter intention.

One has an intention to expand the org. An “expert” says it is difficult as “The building society ....”. The impulse is to then handle the problem presented by the “expert”, whereas the correct ETHICS action is to remove his Counter Intentionedness or Other Intentionedness. If he were an EXPERT he would simply say “OK. I’ll handle my end of the expansion”.

There are many ways to handle counter and other intentionedness.

There is a fine line between Ethics and Tech.

The point where a thetan goes mad is very exact. It is the point where he begins to obsessively stop something. From this the effort becomes generalized and he begins to stop lots of other things. When this includes anyone who or anything that would help him as well as those people and things that help, the being is suppressive. His intentions counter any other intention, particularly good intentions.

Other intentionedness comes from unawareness or dispersal. By removing things which disperse others. Offering bottled medicine to cure “the blues” is a direct distraction. It is the purveyor of the distraction who is the target.

The person who enters on Scn groups to then sell other-answer is of course an enemy.

However we go about accomplishing the above is the action of Ethics. The above is the purpose.

L. RON HUBBARD 
Founder

LRH:js.cden 
Copyright © 1968 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 29 JUNE 1968

Remimeo
Ethics Officer	Div 1 - Dept 3—Ethics Section
Hat
Registrar Hat	ENROLLMENT IN SUPPRESSIVE GROUPS
Address Hat
Franchise	(Amends HCO PL 28 Dec 1965
City Offices	of Same Title)

Any person found to be connected to a Suppressive Group may not thereafter be enrolled in the Saint Hill Solo Audit Course or the Clearing Course.

Suppressive Groups are defined as those which seek to destroy Scientology or which specialize in injuring or killing persons or damaging their cases or which advocate suppression of Mankind.

It does not matter whether the person so connected disconnects or handles, or whether the connection has been previously severed.

The reason for this policy letter is to make it extremely difficult for suppressive groups to acquire data they could then pervert and use to harm others.

If a person was a member and left, it still remains such a person must have had some basic agreement with the motives of the suppressive group.

If we do not hold this rule we may find our task made harder by the abuse of data. We do not want, ever again, the epidemics of implantation to recur and will do all in our power to deny data to any who might pervert it to such use.

A person so denied access to upper level data may not receive it ever unless the group of which he is or has been a member is completely abolished and dispersed.

Ethics files in all orgs must contain the names of such persons.

Neither may such a person ever become a staM member of a Scielltology organization without special clearance from LRH Ethics Authority Section, Dept 27, WW. Anyone on staff found to have been a member of a suppressive group must be sent to this section for clearance.

NAMES PERSONS ENROLLED IN SP GROUPS OR DECLARED SP MUST BE CIRCULATED TO ALL FRANCHISE HOLDERS, SCN OFFICES AND ORGS AS AND WHEN DISCOVERED. THEY ARE NOT COVERED BY ANY AMNESTY AND MAY NOT HAVE ADVANCED COURSES UNTIL GROUP DISBANDED. SUCH PERSONS MAY NOT BE EMPLOYED BY ORGS OR OFFICES AND IF FOUND EMPLOYED IN ANY CENTRE THAT FRANCHISE WILL BE CANCELLED, PERSONS OF SP GROUP MEMBERSHIP OR DECLARED SP MAY NOT BE FSMS.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:js.cden 	
Copyright © 1968 	
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 26 AUGUST 1968
Remimeo
Sea Org	           
QUALS

REHAB & CORRECTION

You can correct a pc or Pre OT half to death.

For instance the practice of rehabbing up to Grade II if it has been a week or two or more since the pc made Grade II in order to run III is a bit bonkers and serves as an Invalidation. You’re going to get any upset anyway in the rudiments so why the rehab?

At SH lower grades are rehabbed before Power only when the pc had the lower grades elsewhere as the grades aren’t to be trusted and that’s for Power only. And only when there’s no good report available.

Doing a Green Form “every day” on a pc or Pre OT may shove up Qual stats but it’s actually an overrun of Green Forms. They go to F/N on the Green Form and to do another WITHOUT ANY REAL TROUBLE having occurred is asking for it.

Sec Checks can be overrun and overdone. By-passing 2 or 3 Floating Needles on a Sec Check is bad business.

Doing Disagreements Checks and S & Ds wholesale on pcs and Pre OTs eventually winds them up in a ball.

Outnesses can usually be spotted by folder inspection by a good Case Supervisor.

When Remedy Bs and S & Ds are done by auditors who haven’t got the Laws of Listing recent HCOB down by heart and use it will generally mess up more pcs than they will help.

Qual corrects. But it can get into over-correction and then invalidate the pc’s or Pre OT’s levels, fill his folder with bad lists, etc.

If any organization, any Qual, at this writing had its folders fully gone over by a competent Case Supervisor who KNEW his Laws of Listing, knew his auditing, I guarantee that Org’s stats would soar, not just Qual’s. And having for once and all straightened out the folder then cease to correct things that would better be handled by the next Grade or Section.

When over-correction has been present YOU STRAIGHTEN OUT THE BLUNDERS IN THE FOLDER not just maul the pc around some more. And when you have the folder straight you mark it up to that point as remedied and after that only handle the pc when there’s something really gone wrong with him.

At the present writing I am organizing the Class VIII Course to make Class VIII auditors. These are essentially Case Supervisors and crack standard tech people who can straighten out folders and pcs and Pre OTs. Looking over old Qual case folders I see they are desperately needed.

But keep the fact in view, don’t correct a pc who needs no correction. Don’t rehab and Remedy him to death. Get him onto the next level or section and let him have his wins.

LRH:jp.ei.cden 						L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1968 						Founder 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 28 AUGUST 1968

Remimeo
Class VIII
All Orgs

OUT TECH

After Standard Tech is out for just so long in an org, Scientology ceases to have any meaning.

Squirrel processes and repairs wind the staff up in a ball, enturbulate the field and cause a general lethargy and trouble.

Ethics then goes in hard or it all goes up in smoke.

There is only one Standard Tech! It contains only a few dozen processes and actions. It was not complete before 1966. Students study mainly the Research Line. Standard Tech consists of the exact grade processes and Case Repair.

Some still look for magic buttons that resolve a case all at once. Some can’t duplicate what they read and hear.

They need the broad body of knowledge.

BUT the actual application of Dian & Scn today contains only a few dozen STANDARD INVARIABLE SIMPLE actions and processes.

When these are not used, when opinion enters, it’s all gone.

STANDARD TECH ALONE RESOLVES ALL CASES.

No matter how bright, the other processes and new inventions of someone else (a) work only on a few and (b) are efforts to solve one’s own case by auditing others.

To let Standard Tech go out is an act of Treason as Scientology then loses all meaning in an org.

This is why I am teaching a Class VIII Course.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD
                                        					Founder

LRH-jp.ei.bh 
Copyright © 1968 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 31 AUGUST 1968
Remimeo
Case Supervisor Hat

WRITTEN C/S INSTRUCTIONS

It is a High Crime for a Case Supervisor not to WRITE in a preclear’s folder what the case supervised instructions are and a High Crime for an auditor to accept verbal C/S instructions.

To commit this crime causes:

1. 	Extreme difficulty when doing a folder error summary as there is no background of what was ordered and why.

2. 	Gives the auditor leave to do anything he likes as not in writing.

3. 	Is open to misduplication and can cause squirrel processes to be run and so mess up a preclear with Non-Standard Tech.

Any C/Supervisor found guilty of this from this date is to be removed as this could only be considered a deliberate attempt to mess up preclears.

								L. RON HUBBARD 
								Founder 
LRH:jp.ts 
Copyright © 1968 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 23 SEPTEMBER 1968
(Reissued 22 January 1972 as “Remimeo”)
Remimeo	

DRUGS & TRIPPERS

Any case that won’t run or won’t rehab is probably a “tripper”, meaning somebody who has taken drugs.

Standard practice for anyone who has ever taken drugs or even alcohol is to rehabilitate the moments of releases in these.

Drugs (or alcohol) give an enforced moment or period of release. It is surrounded in mass.

LSD, marijuana (pot, hashish), peyote, opium, ether (in operations), nitrous oxide (laughing gas in dental operations), weird “biochemical” compounds used by “psychiatrists”, Benzedrine, solid alcohol (canned heat), alcohol, turpentine, gasoline, witch herbs of various kinds, and even certain rays, in this lifetime and on the back track, could have caused a moment of release.

Death does also but it’s a bit steep to rehab.

In a rehab session, or before such a this lifetime one is audited on grades, the moments of release should be rehabbed.

The C/S directs this to be done before a rehab of ARC Straight Wire.

Such releases usually need rehabbing only once.

Tough rehabbing and probably all “Black Vs” probably trace to these chemical “releases” .

They are deadly because they give the sensation of release while actually pulling in mass.

When “All black” reads on a GF one of these chemical release periods is probably in restim.

These “Chemical releases” give us a lot of trouble unless (a) detected and (b) rehabbed.

Such pcs often withhold the fact (non-acceptable or discreditable datum) quite madly and thus make detection difficult unless directly asked for on a hard to run case.

Such persons can also be a mess on III if the chemical period rehabs aren’t done.

Delusory or dub-in cases also sometimes trace to chemical “releases”.

Painkillers, tranquilizers or morphine can also be explored where no “drug taking” is traced.

All the above come under the heading of forceful exteriorization and can inhibit the act of exteriorization on V.

Such pcs are a bit blank, irresponsible or detached.

Each TYPE of chemical which produced “release” must be rehabbed and it is best to count how many times released on each type.

	                        					L. RON HUBBARD	
						            	Founder  

LRH:jp.mes.rd         
Copyright ©1968, 1972					
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED	                         

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 14 OCTOBER 1968R
REVISED 1 JANUARY 1976
Remimeo
Auditor 43
Class VIII

THE AUDITOR’S CODE

In celebration of the 100% gains attainable by Standard Tech.

I hereby promise as an Auditor to follow the Auditor’s Code.

1. 	I promise not to evaluate for the preclear or tell him what he should think about his case in session.

2. 	I promise not to invalidate the preclear’s case or gains in or out of session.

3. 	I promise to administer only Standard Tech to a preclear in the standard way.

4. 	I promise to keep all auditing appointments once made.

5. 	I promise not to process a preclear who has not had sufficient rest and who is physically tired.

6. 	I promise not to process a preclear who is improperly fed or hungry.

7. 	I promise not to permit a frequent change of Auditors.

8. 	I promise not to sympathize with a preclear but to be effective.

9. 	I promise not to let the preclear end session on his own determinism but to finish off those cycles I have begun.

10. 	I promise never to walk off from a preclear in session.

11. 	I promise never to get angry with a preclear in session.

12. 	I promise to run every major case action to a floating needle.

13. 	I promise never to run any one action beyond its floating needle.

14. 	I promise to grant beingness to the preclear in session.

15. 	I promise not to mix the processes of Scientology with other practices except when the preclear is physically ill and only medical means will serve.

16. 	I promise to maintain Communication with the preclear and not to cut his comm or permit him to overrun in session.

17. 	I promise not to enter comments, expressions or enturbulence into a session that distract a preclear from his case.

18. 	I promise to continue to give the preclear the process or auditing command when needed in the session.

19. 	I promise not to let a preclear run a wrongly understood command.

20. 	I promise not to explain, justify or make excuses in session for any Auditor mistakes whether real or imagined.

21. 	I promise to estimate the current case state of a preclear only by Standard Case Supervision data and not to diverge because of some imagined difference in the case.

22. 	I promise never to use the secrets of a preclear divulged in session for punishment or personal gain.

23. 	I promise to see that any fee received for processing is refunded following the policies of the Claims Verification Board, if the preclear is dissatisfied and demands it within three months after the processing, the only condition being that he may not again be processed or trained.

24. 	I promise not to advocate Scientology only to cure illness or only to treat the insane, knowing well it was intended for spiritual gain.

25. 	I promise to cooperate fully with the legal organizations of Dianetics and Scientology as developed by L. Ron Hubbard in safeguarding the ethical use and practice of the subject according to the basics of Standard Tech.

26. 	I promise to refuse to permit any being to be physically injured, violently damaged, operated on or killed in the name of “mental treatment”.

27. 	I promise not to permit sexual liberties or violation of the mentally unsound.

28. 	I promise to refuse to admit to the ranks of practitioners any being who is insane.

Auditor:__________________________

Date: ____________________________

Witness:	Place: ___________________________

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD
                                        					Founder

LRH:nt.rd 
Copyright © 1968, 1976 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 21 OCTOBER 1968

Remimeo
CANCELLATION OF FAIR CAME

The practice of declaring people FAIR CAME will ceases FAIR GAME may not appear on any Ethics Order. It causes bad public relations.

This P/L does not cancel any policy on the treatment or liandling of an SP.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:ei.cden 
Copyright © 1968 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 1 NOVEMBER 1968
Class IV
Class VIII
HIGH TA

There are TWO methods of taking a TA down that is HIGH. 4.0 is a high TA.

One is the routine process of “What has been overrun?”, HCOB 17 Sept ‘68. It is not used as a rudiment. It is for chronic high TAs.

There is another one also. It is quite different and is run differently. It is not a listing process. It is the simple question “Has anything been overrun?”

It is used at session start or after a break when the TA is found to have risen mysteriously to 4.0 or above.

It requires a clever auditor. First, he notices the TA is at 4.0. Then he gets the pc to answer “Has anything been overrun?” If the pc says something and the TA comes down, that’s it. The TA may only come down to 3.5. But that’s it.

Then one puts in a rud. Unless of course the answer to “Has anything been O/R?” was “Ruds” or “Asking for ARC Brks”. One would then indicate this as BPC and the TA should come on down.

This action is just getting the TA down so one can audit.

Don’t expect ruds to pull down a 4.0 TA.

And NEVER start a main action with the TA high expecting the main action will get it down. The main action hasn’t got it up.

Overrun of the main action or of any action past F/N will cause the TA to rise. One knows why that is and simply indicates the by-pass of an F/N and down comes the TA.

Calling for “Has anything been overrun?” is VERY simple. You don’t ask “How many times, etc.” You just get it spotted and down comes the TA.

If the pc says something in answer and the TA doesn’t come down, the auditor says, “No”. The pc searches about and gives another. If it’s not that the auditor says “No”. The pc says something else and down comes the TA and the auditor says, “Good, that’s the overrun.” And then the auditor carries on with his session actions.

The commonest cause of a TA flying up in a break is the process went F/N out of session and the intention of the auditor to continue it sends it up.

Note a Real HOT Auditor who really knows his basics can float a needle on this with one shot.

LRH:jp.rw.cden						L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1968						Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 15 NOVEMBER 1968

Remimeo

CANCELLATION OF DISCONNECTION

Since we call now handle all types ot cases disconnection as a condition is cancelled.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH:rw.cden 
Copyright © 1968 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 26 DECEMBER 1968
Remimeo         

(Note: This data is turned out as an HCO B and a Pol Ltr [issued as each one] as may apply very broadly in both the OEC and Level IV or above Courses.)

THE THIRD PARTY LAW

I have for a very long time studied the causes of violence and conflict amongst individuals and nations.

If Chaldea could vanish, if Babylon turn to dust, if Egypt could become a badlands, if Sicily could have 160 prosperous cities and be a looted ruin before the year zero and a near desert ever since—and all this in SPITE of all the work and wisdom and good wishes and intent of human beings, then it must follow as the dark follows sunset that something must be unknown to Man concerning all his works and ways. And that this something must be so deadly and so pervasive as to destroy all his ambitions and his chances long before their time.

Such a thing would have to be some natural law unguessed at by himself.

And there is such a law, apparently, that answers these conditions of being deadly, unknown and embracing all activities.

The law would seem to be:

A THIRD PARTY MUST BE PRESENT AND UNKNOWN IN EVERY QUARREL FOR A CONFLICT TO EXIST.

or

FOR A QUARREL TO OCCUR, AN UNKNOWN THIRD PARTY MUST BE ACTIVE IN PRODUCING IT BETWEEN TWO POTENTIAL OPPONENTS. 

or

WHILE IT IS COMMONLY BELIEVED TO TAKE TWO TO MAKE A FIGHT, A THIRD PARTY MUST EXIST AND MUST DEVELOP IT FOR ACTUAL CONFLICT TO OCCUR.

It is very easy to see that two in conflict are fighting. They are very visible. What is harder to see or suspect is that a third party existed and actively promoted the quarrel.

The usually unsuspected and “reasonable” third party, the bystander who denies any part of it is the one that brought the conflict into existence in the first place.

The hidden third party, seeming at times to be a supporter of only one side, is to be found as the instigator.

This is a useful law on many dynamics.

It is the cause of war.
One sees two fellows shouting bad names at each other, sees them come to blows. No one else is around. So they, of course, “caused the fight”. But there was a third party.

Tracing these down, one comes upon incredible data. That is the trouble. The incredible is too easily rejected. One way to hide things is to make them incredible.

Clerk A and Messenger B have been arguing. They blaze into direct conflict. Each blames the other. NEITHER ONE IS CORRECT AND SO THE QUARREL DOES NOT RESOLVE SINCE ITS TRUE CAUSE IS NOT ESTABLISHED.

One looks into such a case THOROUGHLY. He finds the incredible. The wife of Clerk A has been sleeping with Messenger B and complaining alike to both about the other.

Farmer J and Rancher K have been tearing each other to pieces for years in continual conflict. There are obvious, logical reasons for the fight. Yet it continues and does not resolve. A close search finds Banker L who, due to their losses in the fighting, is able to loan each side money, while keeping the quarrel going, and who will get their lands completely if both lose.

It goes larger. The revolutionary forces and the Russian government were in conflict in 1917. The reasons are so many the attention easily sticks on them. But only when Germany’s official state papers were captured in World War II was it revealed that Germany had promoted the revolt and financed LENIN to spark it off, even sending him into Russia in a blacked out train!

One looks over “personal” quarrels, group conflicts, national battles and one finds, if he searches, the third party, unsuspected by both combatants or if suspected at all, brushed off as “fantastic”. Yet careful documentation finally affirms it.

------------

This datum is fabulously useful.

In marital quarrels the correct approach of anyone counseling, is to get both parties to carefully search out the third party. They may come to many reasons at first. These reasons are not beings. One is looking for a third party, an actual being. When both find the third party and establish proof, that will be the end of the quarrel.

Sometimes two parties, quarreling, suddenly decide to elect a being to blame. This stops the quarrel. Sometimes it is not the right being and more quarrels thereafter occur.

Two nations at each other’s throats should each seek conference with the other to sift out and locate the actual third party. They will always find one if they look, and they can find the right one. As it will be found to exist in fact.

-------------

There are probably many technical approaches one could develop and outline in this matter.

There are many odd phenomena connected with it. An accurately spotted third party is usually not fought at all by either party but only shunned.

Marital conflicts are common. Marriages can be saved by both parties really sorting out who caused the conflicts. There may have been, in the whole history of the marriage, several, but only one at a time.

Quarrels between an individual and an organization are nearly always caused by an individual third party or a third group. The organization and the individual should get together and isolate the third party by displaying to each other all the data they each have been fed.

Rioters and governments alike could be brought back to agreement could one get representatives of both to give each other what they have been told by whom.

SUCH CONFERENCES HAVE TENDED TO DEAL ONLY IN RECRIMINATIONS OR CONDITIONS OR ABUSES. THEY MUST DEAL IN BEINGS ONLY IN ORDER TO SUCCEED.

This theory might be thought to assert also that there are no bad conditions that cause conflict. There are. But these are usually REMEDIAL BY CONFERENCE UNLESS A THIRD PARTY IS PROMOTING CONFLICT.

In history we have a very foul opinion of the past because it is related by recriminations of two opponents and has not spotted the third party.

“Underlying causes” of war should read “hidden promoters”.

There are no conflicts which cannot be resolved unless the true promoters of them remain hidden.
------------

This is the natural law the ancients and moderns alike did not know.

And not knowing it, being led off into “reasons”, whole civilizations have died.

It is worth knowing.

It is worth working with in any situation where one is trying to bring peace.

								L. RON HUBBARD 

LRH:rw.rd 
Copyright © 1968 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 8 JANUARY 1969
Remimeo

DRUGS AND “INSANITY”
NON-COMPLIANCE AND ALTER-IS

I have been doing some research on drug cases and takers which has shed some interesting light on this and also insanity.

The basic equation is apparently:

WHEN THREATENED WITH UNMOCKING A THETAN MOCKS UP OBSESSIVELY.

Actually the datum is a small bit from OT VIII data, being part of energy creation.

It applies too well at lower levels, however, to leave it in such a stratosphere.

It explains for instance why a pc, challenged by an “auditor” who is breaking the Auditor’s Code, gets such a solid reaction in the reactive bank.

Threatened by an apparent effort to destroy him instead of letting him find the truth, the pc reacts by mocking up hard below his awareness level. This does not, of course, make him insane. It just sticks him a bit in the session.

Drugs (LSD, marijuana, alcohol, whatever) produce a threat to the body like any other poison. The threat is to the body. The thetan reacts by mocking up.

Of course what he mocks up is some engram, secondary or combination of fancy and fact. He can do this in some cases, so hard that it becomes more real (and safer) than present time.

Thus, under threat, he goes out of present time.

Now comes the next bit which is important as a new discovery:

HIS TIME TRACK IS NOT THEN BEING MADE UP WHOLLY OF PRESENT TIME EVENTS. IT IS A COMPOSITE OF PAST TRACK, IMAGINATION AND PRESENT EVENTS.

Thus, right there before your eyes he, apparently in the same room as you are, doing the same things, is really only partially there and partially in some past events.

He seems to be there. Really he isn’t “tracking” fully with present time.

What is going on to a rational observation is not what is going on to him.

Thus he does not duplicate statements made by another but tries to fit them into his composite reality. In order to fit them in, he has to alter them.

We therefore have the real basis of alter-is.

He may be sure he is helping one REPAIR the floor but in actual fact he is hindering the actual operation in progress which really consists of CLEANING the floor. So when he “helps one” mop the floor he introduces chaos into the activity. Since he is REPAIRING the floor a request to “give me the mop” has to be reinterpreted as “hand me the hammer”. But the mop handle is larger than a hammer handle so the bucket gets upset.

As a thetan can mock up an infinity of combinations, there would be an infinity of types of reactions to drugs. There would also be an infinity of types of insanity.

What is constant is that he is NOT RUNNING IN THE SAME SERIES OF EVENTS as others.

This can be slight, wherein the person is seen to make occasional mistakes. It can be as serious as total insanity where the events apparent to him are completely different than those apparent to anyone else. And it can be all grades in between. It isn’t that he doesn’t know what’s going on. It’s that he perceives something else going on instead of the Present Time sequence of events.

Thus others appear to him to be stupid or unreasonable or insane. As they don’t agree in their actions and orders with what he plainly sees is in progress “they” aren’t sensible. Example: A group is moving furniture. To all but one they are simply moving furniture. This one perceives himself to be “moving geometric shapes into a cloud”. Thus this one “makes mistakes” “alter-ises” “non-complies”. As the group doesn’t see inside him and only sees another like themselves, they can’t figure out why he “balls things up so”.

Such persons as drug takers and the insane are thus slightly or wholly on an apparently different time track of “present time” events.

A drug may be taken to drive a person out of an unbearable PT or out of consciousness altogether. In some persons they do not afterwards return wholly to Present Time.

A thetan can also escape an unbearable PT by dropping into the past, even without drugs.

The penalty is running into obsessive mocking up to counter the threat of being unmocked.

The answer is to erase the engrams and reactive mechanisms.

As all this out-of-PT is unknowing, it is aberrative. Things one is doing that one knows one is doing are not aberrative.

The drug taker and the insane alike have not recovered present time, to a greater or lesser degree. Thus they think they are running on a different time track than they are, which, unknowingly and out of the past, they are, to a greater or lesser degree, mocking up.

These are the underlying facts in odd human behaviour.

ENTURBULATION

Thus we get an explanation of enturbulation as well.

As what is going on according to the perception and subjective reality of such a person is varied in greater or lesser degree from the objective reality of others, such a person enturbulates the actual environment.
What is really going on is not what is going on for them.

Orders, then, are not complied with, other things happen and people around such a person have their own consecutive events disrupted. This causes enturbulation.

The non-compliance, alter-is and upsets from a person who is out of present time and (what is new about this) who is running on a different series of events than those going on for the rest cause general enturbulation.

This is why it takes two additional staff members to handle the routine goofs of such a person. They are forcing events to run more or less normally against the counter effort of a person with a delusory time track.

We have all known such a person, many more than one, so it is not uncommon in the current civilization. The sudden non sequitur remark, out of context. The blank stare when given an order or a remark—behind these lies a whole imaginary time track which we jar into and accidentally disrupt.

EXTERIORIZATION

In OT sections we sometimes hear of a person who is “exterior” and so can’t be audited any more. The symptoms of the person have not changed. So he still has aberrations.

The answer is to clear the word exteriorization with them. They often are exterior into a never-never non-extant universe. Or exterior in a past death.

When the word is cleared with them, they often don’t really say what was going on. They experience a strange reaction and change.

If one then runs a bit of objective havingness, they come into present time.

This applies only to exteriorized cases who can’t be audited because they are “exterior”. And yet aren’t all right casewise.

The usual course is to just handle the case by Standard Tech. They eventually come right.

DANGEROUS ENVIRONMENT

Anyone forced into a dangerous environment tends to either go fully into PT or retreat from PT.

The only ones who suffer from it afterwards are those who don’t move on up the track as life goes on but stay there, retreated from a long gone present time or stuck in a moment of the past.

This is done, of course, because of pictures mocked up obsessively under the threat of unmock.

When you understand the condition you can’t be fooled by it and think such people are there with you when they are not.

Auditing of course resolves this.

LRH: sdp.ei.rd 	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright ©1969 	Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 3 MARCH 1969
Remimeo
Class VIII	
Level IV	CASE GAIN
Tech Sec	
Qual Sec	COMPLETING LEVELS

Anyone who interprets "the real gains of a case consist of going up the levels" (which is true and was stated in order to prevent over-review) as meaning that the level a case is on is not to be conclusive or put the pc into good case condition, has a tech alter-is going.

The registrar can use "You need the next level" but when Tech or Qual buy this as an excuse not to run levels right or to get gains on any given level it's time to look this fact over HARD.

ANY LEVEL IS ITSELF CAPABLE OF STABLE CASE GAIN. If a level does not THEN THE CASE IS LOUSED UP ON EARLIER LEVELS and is a standard case of someone with a lower level out! This is all covered in Class VIII.

This is true of ARC Straight Wire and OT VI alike. The rule holds.

Any level is capable of giving a stable case gain and if it does not THERE IS SOMETHING VERY WRONG with the way it or an earlier level was run.

To chase a pc on up the levels to cure an outness on earlier levels is idiocy. It is WASTING AUDITING. It is a shabby excuse for not setting a case up to be audited or auditing badly.

To solve an earlier out tech situation one does not "give the next level".

If a pc ends up at Level II (or OT II) without a stable gain attained then the set-up of the case or the handling of it is SOUR.

This is the most elementary situation in case repair.

ANY LEVEL is capable of case gain and of being stable, the pc feeling good, etc. The drive to get the next level is very natural but when it becomes obsessive to get a case gain then it isn't the next level that's needed.

ARC Straight Wire is more tech than Man ever had before. It produces a stable gain. This is true of every level on up.

We have just had a PreOT whose case at every level "was going to be solved by the next level". People kept saying he "needed the next level" to solve his case. Bull. He got all the way to OT II before I caught wind of it. He "had to have OT III" to solve his case according to the Qual Sec.

That case probably never made ARC Straight Wire! One or more earlier levels or ruds or 7 cases are out. That's the trouble with that case.

If you now let him go on to OT III he'd cop it.

The tech you are handling is capable of giving spectacular gains at every level. If it does not then the case has missed somewhere, comes under 7 resistive cases or out ruds or one or more missed or overrun levels.

This is one of those things which seems to have been going around ("needs the next level to solve his case") for some time without my finding out about it. Sure they need their next level. But do they have their levels up to where they are? If they aren't in good shape at the end of any one level then there's a miss on the case and it must be repaired by standard tech.

L. RON HUBBARD
FOUNDER

LRH:hk ei.rd 							
Copyright © 1969						
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 5 APRIL 1969
(Reissued and corrected 26 May 1970)
Remimeo	
Dianetic Course
D of Ts
D of Ps
Class VIIIs
NEW PRECLEARS
The Workability of Scientology

The "training" of a new preclear (never before audited) has long been a subject of know-how amongst auditors but has not actually been covered previously.

The conditions of a new preclear are these:

(a) 	Doesn't know what is supposed to happen.

(b) 	May be under the stress of being embarrassed to talk to someone.

(c) 	May have preconceived ideas of how he is supposed to respond to the auditor (such as psychoanalytic "free association" where he just talks, etc).

(d) 	May be waiting for some magical effect entirely independent of his own participation (as in getting a "shot" from a doctor).

It is too much to ask of a being to:

1. 	Talk to another intimately about himself,

2. 	Fumbling with a new activity while

3. 	Confronting his own bank.

Possibly he has never done any of the three before and to ask him to do them all at once .........well!

All cases are started in their lowest ability level since they have not had it increased. Whereas they may be quite well off as human beings, they do not know how well off they might become.

The wrong thing to do is to enforce their improvement with a sales talk or evaluation on how well they did in the session.

And it is wrong to go on auditing them while they essentially remain in mystery.

The correct solution to all these difficulties is to assign the pc to do a PE Course if it includes TRs and to have the pc do the TRs before being audited.

We probably should have a set of poster type pictures put up in a PE area as follows:

Picture of an auditor with a meter in front of him, profile view, "This is an AUDITOR. He does not invalidate, criticize or evaluate for the preclear."

Picture of an E-Meter, "This is an E-METER. It is used to verify the preclear's gain and register when each separate auditing action is ended."

A picture of a being, a silhouette showing no features, "This is YOU, a PRECLEAR, a spiritual being who is now on the road to becoming clear, hence preclear."

Picture of an auditor with a meter and a shadowy preclear. "This is a SESSION. The auditor and the preclear locate, step by step, any mental blocks to increased ABILITY AND FREEDOM."

A picture of a down point to the left and a road going up high to the right. At the down point is SUCCUMB. At the up point is SURVIVAL. Some figures are on the line, they are the auditing session interspersed with a small figure of somebody studying. A big arrow parallels the line pointing up. "Scientology AUDITING and STUDY are the road to ABILITY and FREEDOM."

A picture of the Grade Chart simplified, modernized to show sub-zeros plainly and including OT Levels. "Freedom is reached by going up through the GRADES of auditing."

A picture of the classes of auditors all the way to Class VIII including the PE Course, etc and where taught. "Ability and gain are achieved by TRAINING."

A series of pictures of a caved-in person who gets better and better in subsequent higher pictures. "Scientology processing obtains continual IMPROVEMENT."

A picture of a body, a thetan. "You are a SPIRITUAL BEING, not a body or an animal, as you will discover in processing."

A picture representation of each of the dynamics from I to 8 including the R6 god with an arrow paralleling them on a slant upwards. "There is more to LIFE than personal suffering and trouble." The picture of the R6 god used is the "Old Man" symbol as used on the covers of various Dianetics and Scientology Publications.

A picture of a sunburst with Scientology written in its centre, "Scientology reveals the natural laws of life. You CAN know the answers."

This set prominently displayed in an org in a long panel from left to right, with a sign over it, "You have come to the right place," and a long arrow indicating the sequence, will do an awful lot to answer a preclear's questions. At the end of the panel a sign, same size, saying "See the Registrar, Room       " will also direct the preclear.

The preclear should be signed up, if he is a preclear, and with the money paid, sent to a PE Course.

If this is not feasible, he at least should be first assigned to do TRs.

A preclear information sheet can also be compiled giving him data commonly asked.

A preclear's dictionary which includes all terms used in processes and their definition should also be given to him.

If the preclear seems not to be improving even as early as the TRs, a white form of case and health history should be very carefully done, including narcotics.

If he is on narcotics he must come off them and have been off them for a while (in Los Angeles they say six weeks), before resuming his auditing.

If on resuming auditing the preclear still does not gain despite 7 cases, a careful and full medical clinical examination should be ordered as the preclear is medically ill in some previously unsuspected fashion. This is covered in HCO B 12 March 1969, "Physically Ill Pcs".

Should this not prove to be the case, or if the pc does not get well then apply the HCO B of 2 April 1969, "Dianetic Assists", an auditing assist as given in that HCO B.

Above all, don't let unnecessary stops occur on this line for pcs who just sail through.

In a recent glance over the case folders of some stalled or "chronically ill" pcs I found the main sin was simply "No Auditing" occurring in the following ways:

Case 1—3 case supervision directions carefully and correctly advised but NONE OF THEM DONE. No other auditing was done either. Then a fourth case supervision direction on top ignoring the folder and advising something else but that was not done either.

Case 2—Preclear chronically doing badly. Was being "audited" but hadn't a clue. Was not up to talking to an auditor at all. (I ordered TRs and the auditor did them, the pc bloomed and went on up the grades splendidly.)

Case 3—Pc all crippled up from old injuries. In the folder I found no C/Ses there had been done as ordered. Also found the pc had sneaked his folder and done some wild self auditing before auditing could be done. (Ordered HCO B 12 March 1969, Touch Assists and then medical treatment to set a long time broken back.)

Case 4—Pc told the auditor in the session she had a secondary sitting right there and was in it. And although had bad indicators in, the auditor just ended the session.

Case 5—Pc ordered in for a Review, was given the cans, the auditor said "That's it", pc went off in mystery.

Case 6—Pc shaking and fevered but no physical illness according to doctor. Auditor A did an S & D. Pc still not well. A few weeks later illness recurred. I got hold of the pc, asked when the shaking had begun, found an engram where the pc had been withholding being cold, ran it, pc totally recovered. The incident had occurred only a day before Auditor A's session. Had Auditor A merely asked what had been going on he would have found it at once, run it and that would have been that. It was only an auditing assist that was needed which is why I wrote HCO B 2 April 1969, "Dianetic Assists". It hadn't ever occurred to me that auditors wouldn't use the principle of engram running to handle a pc who hurt.

So it adds up to the fact that just not doing auditing is a fundamental error. That's what's meant by "no auditing" in the 7 Resistive Cases of a Class VIII. Auditing just wasn't used to handle the pc. "No Auditing."

The NEW pc who hasn't a clue what auditing is is apt to get a lot of "No auditing". So you teach him what to expect by posters, a PE, TRs.

The troubled pc who is all introverted with a real physical or mental problem had jolly well better get it handled, as in the "Physically Ill Pcs" HCO B 12 March 1969 or with Dianetic Assist as per HCO B 2 April 1969. You don't just sail on up the grades and throw them away.

If you ever get an area that thinks Dianetics and Scientology don't work (which is about as silly as saying there is no gravity) then:

(a) 	You have an area that has been infiltrated and the tech performance perverted; or

(b) 	You have a person around who is terrified that it will work and others grown more powerful will now destroy him (which surrenders casewise to "Physically Ill Pcs" or the top Power Process used first followed by sub-zeros and grades); or

(c) 	You have a narcotic-silly area and are not making them desist before auditing or handling their past addiction by running out its engrams; or

(d) 	You have an area that just isn't auditing at all; or

(e) 	You are not handling new pcs as we used to and as recommended in this HCO B.

As a final remark, I have seen a person get "audited all the way to the top" who wasn't ever audited at all. As a comment this is pretty bad but a close check revealed that a large percent did not even know the content or action of a key grade below where they were supposed to have "arrived". They had zero indoctrination as a pc and had not ever made even the sub-zero of ARC Straight Wire.

So lay this down, Case Supervisors and auditors all, as a firm cast-in-concrete rule:

IF YOUR PC DOES NOT OBTAIN A TOTAL REALITY ON HAVING HAD GAINS BEYOND HIS EXPECTATIONS, AUDITING HAS NOT BEEN DONE IN THE FIRST PLACE OR THE PC IS ON DRUGS OR PHYSICALLY ILL.

I look at it this way, auditing is terribly simple. Turn me loose with an E-Meter and a pc and up the line he comes. If he doesn't or can't respond he's seriously ill. If he's that ill that he can't be audited he needs medical treatment. And when he's had that, back to the meter and I'll show you a shining pc.

You say, yes, that's you. You know and can do it.

Sure, sure, sure. But anyone who has studied his meter, his books and bulletins can do it just as easily. If the pc answers his questions and IF HE DOES AUDIT.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD
                                        					Founder

LRH:cp.el.dz.ka.rd 
Copyright © 1969, 1970 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 6 APRIL 1969
Remimeo
Dianetics Course
FUNDAMENTAL AUDITING

For some years it has not been appreciated fully that the ability to do DIANETIC AUDITING is the true fundamental background of a Scientology auditor.

For many years, 1950 onward, a Dianetic auditor was proudly capable of resolving mental and physical problems by his ability to find and run engrams and secondaries.

The Dianetic auditor had no other skill or tools than his understanding of mental image pictures, as locks, secondaries and engrams and the time track. With these tools he produced many miracles. Broken bones healed in two weeks instead of six, withered limbs restored, burns vanished, swellings reduced visibly to nothing, lives wrecked by grief and loss recovered, women lost their aging wrinkles and sought-after abilities returned.

The percentage of win was above 50%, which is double that of former approaches.

The use of the E-Meter and my development of R-3-R increased this percentage.

Dianetic training was usually one month in length and attained a high percentage of successful graduates who could attain excellent results.

Dianetics operates at the level of the human being and is addressed mainly to the body and mind. It does not attempt and should not be confused with the end product of Scientology which is spiritual freedom. The end product of Dianetics is a well, happy, high IQ human being.

Dianetics is itself and has its place. When one can handle Dianetics so as to make people well and happy, one can then begin to think of and work on the higher aspects of Scientology. To attempt to obtain the results of Scientology by applying only Dianetics is in fact a confusion of objectives.

The Dianetic auditor, whether the "very best people" behind governments like it or not, is the natural inheritor of all mental healing.

Working in conjunction with bona fide physical healers such as the actual practicing medical doctor, the Dianetic auditor, with only the skills taught on the Dianetic Course, could all but eradicate psychosomatic illness and mental illness on this planet. Tens of thousands of cases in Dianetics show this is no idle boast. The recent breakthrough showing most insanity is common physical illness untreated, adds up to making such an objective a fact.

The Scientology auditor is all too often balked by the fact that his preclear comes to him already ill. His preclear is below being a well human being. That is part of the gradient. If the Scientology auditor is not also a good Dianetic auditor he tends to ignore the fact that his preclear is not yet up to being a well human being.

Applying Grade Processing the Scientology auditor has already skipped a grade—a well human being. He therefore fails to understand that his preclear is simply seeking to escape as a thetan the gradient of being a well being.

The role of Dianetics, let us face it, is that of a healing science. It is the most advanced mental science man has. It should not be skimped or scanted. A good Dianetic auditor can handle the bulk of psychosomatic illness and speed the healing of ordinary illness or make it possible for the person to recover. Mental aberration as such can be handled in Dianetics if it works in conjunction with other valid branches of physical healing.

There is then a demarcation between Dianetics and Scientology. The Dianetic auditor's skills reach up to and include a well, happy human being. This is in excess of man's hope for any mental science.

The Scientology auditor is working for increased ability and spiritual freedom. And that is far in excess of any dream of accomplishment man has had including Buddhism.

When we get a sick human being being handled to make him spiritually free we get a confusion and are likely to fail.

The Scientology auditor who is also a good basic Dianetics auditor can make that being well enough, using Dianetics and available healing skills, to succeed with Scientology objectives.

But it has become plain, particularly in the last few months when I have been sorting out materials to communicate them better, that there is a vast difference between Dianetics and Scientology.

A Dianetic preclear is one who is being processed toward the objective of a well and happy human being. A Scientology preclear is a well, happy human being who is being processed toward total ability and spiritual freedom.

Those two definitions should be well learned. It will prevent much confusion and some failures.

When I hear of a preclear "getting his Grade IV to get rid of his headaches" I really groan.

A preclear "getting his Grade IV" obviously never got his Dianetic auditing and the auditors who audited him were mixed up.

I would never never never audit a pc on grades if I found before me a sick person. I would simply change gears, get busy with good old Dianetics and use physical healers if necessary to get a well, happy pc before me. Then I would go on with grades.

Scientology objectives are so far above anything man has any hope for that he at once thinks of them as healing activities. They are not.

Dianetics is the healing activity.

Therefore all Dianetic course materials are refined with that objective fully in view. And when a Scientology auditor finds himself with a Dianetic preclear on his hands and if that auditor learned his Dianetics well, then he will apply Dianetics and when the preclear is ready for it, only then will he apply Scientology.

Any Scientology failures are totally owing to the auditor not learning his Dianetics in the first place.

So have at it and get a hatful of healing wins as a Dianetic Auditor.

LRH:jk.aap 	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1969 	Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 22 APRIL 1969
Issue II
Remimeo
Usual Dn Dist
Dian Checksheet
AOs
SOMATICS AND OTS

If a preclear or pre OT has physical difficulties, bad perception trouble, illness or physical disability HE HAS NO BUSINESS GETTING GRADES POWER CLEARING OR OT LEVELS.
HE
NEEDS
DIANETICS

Once that is completely understood it will end any and all "failures".

The Dianetics he needs is fully contained in the new Dianetics checksheet.

Using Scn auditing and grades to handle common Dianetic problems is to audit a pc over a Present Time Problem.

The big PTPs a thetan has are his body.

A thetan is a thetan and he wants spiritual freedom and ability.

A body is a body.

Scientology = thetan rehabilitation.

Dianetics = body improvement.

All Dianeticists and Scientologists, all pcs and pre OTs should be informed of this.

Using Scn to help the body and Dianetics to help the thetan is a mix of practices and the misuse of both.

Even the applications are different.

In Scn you handle PTPs, ARC Breaks, Missed Withholds that occur in sessions.

In Dianetics you erase the session or incident in which they occurred.

Dianetic processing uses a Meter, R3R and assists and TRs. It also uses an understanding of what the subject is for. It erases locks, secondaries and engrams or their chains. That's exactly what it does and what is done with it. The mental image picture is the source of continued pain, somatics, bad perception or illness. This subject has to be DONE, actually used These data in this paragraph are the total essentials of Dianetics. It is taught, case supervised and used as Dianetics.

The thetan, scales, ARC, exteriorization, ability, freedom, the grades, clearing, and OT levels are the sole province of Scientology.
Earlier writings tend to overlap and intermingle the two subjects.

Because one was not permitted to heal, that being frowned on in some countries, Dianetics tended to be suppressed and was lost sight of. Scientology began to be made to try to do Dianetic work.

We can now cleanly separate the two and so obtain enormously increased case gains.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH:jc.rd 	 
Copyright © 1969 	 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 26 APRIL 1969
Remimeo 
Dianetics 
Checksheet etc.
SOMATICS

You must run only by somatic, not by narrative. Narrative means “Falls down stairs” “An earlier fight with brother”. By somatic is meant a pain or ache sensation and also misemotion or even unconsciousness. There are a thousand different descriptive words that could add up to a feeling. Pain, aches, dizziness, sadness—these are all FEELINGS. Awareness, pleasant or unpleasant, of a body is what we are trying to run in Dianetics.

All chains are held together by one similar feeling. That is a new discovery. Chains are not held together by narratives or personnel or locations. They are held together by FEELINGS. Thus we ASK FOR AND FOLLOW DOWN ONLY FEELINGS. Those can be aches, pains, sensations, misemotion—any FEELING.

This brings to light a further discovery. One never assesses medical terms or symptoms.

An engram contains pain and unconsciousness. All right. Then its basic would be a physical duress not a symptom resulting from that duress.

Example: The pc says “headache”. You assess headache, you try to run “headaches” and all you ever get is times a pc had a headache. Well, the headache is a symptom caused by a head injury. The engram must have contained a shot in the head or a crushed skull or some actual injury. The word “headache” would describe only how the head feels later when the engram occasionally goes into restimulation.

So you would get only locks and secondaries to audit and only by chance and an alteration by the pc of the command to find an earlier headache would you ever get to an engram in which the head was crushed or injured. “Headache” is the result of a head injury, and it doesn’t describe the injury which, in engram form, is now giving the pc headaches.

Take the medical term Arthritis. You could ask for arthritis and get only visits to the doctor or times in a wheel chair. The physical injury contained in the engram causing the arthritis is not described.

Alcoholism would present the same problem. If the pc listed and the auditor assessed “Alcoholism” we would only get times when he was drunk, not the engram causing the symptom which might contain “Feeling very dry”.

Therefore one has more than one column on a Health Form. One would give the physical disability or complaint. The second would be Pc’s Description of the FEELING. We would land the real engram every time, not only its locks or secondaries. (It is quite all right to run locks and secondaries as it is necessary to unburden the chain and increase the pc’s confront, but chains always end up in a basic engram at the bottom and if you don’t get and erase that then the chain will key in again. )

In asking for list items one puts down only what the pc says. That’s an invariable rule. But when the pc says some mere symptom like “headache” or medical term like “arthritis” the auditor writes it down but also asks, “What is the feeling of that?” or some such question and writes what the pc then says AND ONLY ASSESSES THE FEELING STATED.

Example: Pc says a complaint is “SINUSITIS”. The auditor writes it down. But asks also for the feeling of it. The pc says, “A burning sensation in the nose.” In assessing the list the auditor does not call out “Sinusitis.” He says, “A burning sensation in the nose.” And marks down its meter read.

If the auditor took and assessed only “SINUSITIS” and then asked for incidents of sinusitis he would get only locks and secondaries—times when the engram was in restimulation. And he would rarely get the real basic and engram that causes the symptom .

This discovery opens the door to swift “cures”. But one is obviously not treating SINUSITIS. He is looking for an incident in which there was a “burning sensation in the nose”. And after a few locks and upper engrams he’d find and run the real injury in which the nose was burned.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD
                                        					Founder

LRH:jc.ldm .ei .rd 
Copyright © 1969 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 30 APRIL 1969

Remimeo 
Dianetics Checksheet
AUDITOR TRUST

A pc tends to be able to confront to the degree that he or she feels safe.

If the pc is being audited in an auditing environment that is unsafe or prone to interruption his or her confront is greatly lowered and the result is a reduced ability to run locks, secondaries and engrams and to erase them.

If the auditor’s TRs are rough and his manner uncertain or challenging, evaluative or invalidative, the pc’s confront is reduced to zero or worse.

This comes from a very early set of laws (Original Thesis):

      	Auditor plus pc is greater than the bank,

      	Auditor plus bank is greater than the pc,

	Pc minus auditor is less than the bank.

(By “bank” is meant the mental image picture collection of the pc. It comes from computer technology where all data is in a “bank”.)

The difference between auditors is not that one has more data than another or more tricks. The difference is that one auditor will get better results than another due to his stricter adherence to procedure, better TRs, more confident manner, and closer observance of the Auditor’s Code.

No “bedside manner” is required or sympathetic expression. It’s just that an auditor who knows his procedures and has good TRs inspires more confidence. The pc doesn’t have to put his attention on or cope with the auditor and feels safer and so can confront his bank better.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD
                                        					Founder

LRH:cs.ei.rd 
Copyright © 1969 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 11 MAY 1969
Issue II
Remimeo	
Dn Checksheet
FORCING A PC

Forcing a pc to go on being audited upsets the pc and his case and will often result in low TA (below 2) and will give the pc a heavy loss.

There is no excuse for it.

It invalidates the pc’s cause.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH:an.ei.rd							
Copyright © 1969						
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 29 MARCH 1970

Remimeo 
HCO Sec Hat 
E/O Hat 
Tech Sec 
Qual Sec
C/S Checksheets
AUDITING AND ETHICS

Cases undergoing Ethics actions, Comm Evs, amends projects or low conditions should not be audited until the Ethics matter is cleared up and complete. It only louses up their cases to audit them when under such stress.

                                       					L. RON HUBBARD
								Founder
LRH:dr.ei rd		
Copyright © 1970
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 28 MAY 1970
Remimeo

CORRECTION LISTS, USE OF

The various lists designed to find by-passed charge and repair a faulty auditing action or life situation should be used heavily and thoroughly.

There are many such lists—Green Form, L1B, L4, etc.  They are available in HCO B form and are themselves corrected and re-issued from time to time. They can be found in HCO B 5 July AD13 and others.

There are FOUR WAYS TO USE these prepared lists.

1. 	The auditor starts at the top and takes up each read until he gets one to F/N. In this case the auditor does not do “Itsa earlier Itsa”. He just cleans each read.

2. 	The auditor starts from the top and on each read cleans it and does Itsa earlier Itsa to F/N or to a clean no-read and goes on.

3. 	The auditor assesses the list down until he gets a heavy read and cleans that, using Itsa earlier Itsa. Then he can go on to the next heavy read, cleans that. Etc to F/N. In this case he can get several F/Ns on the same list.

4. 	The whole list is rapidly assessed over and over until one item stays in and that is given to the pc.

UPSET PC

When a pc is very upset and misemotional the action in 4 above is the only one to use as it is the safest. On a very upset or antagonistic pc don’t engage in any chatter, just grab a list and assess it, and indicate the By-Passed Charge. The results are usually magical.

REPAIR

Repairing a case fully, as done in Qual or in an HGC, where the person has led an out-rud life, Method 3 above is the one to use. Various and assorted lists can be employed.

SETTING UP

The best way to set up a case for auditing a major action is to Repair it.  This can be necessary before the person is ever audited at all on any major action such as Dianetics or Grades.

Such an action can go on and on and should. The action is to bleed the list of all possible use, using 3.

This is a new discovery I have made.

AUDITING REPAIR

Auditing repair usually uses Methods 1 or (for pcs upset from lists) 4.

ERROR IN USING LISTS

The major error in using prepared lists is not to really get full use out of the list.

In using lists don’t be in a great hurry or do a superficial job.

The list is for the pc, not a statistic.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH: kjm.rd							
Copyright © 1970						      
by L. Ron Hubbard                       				
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED	

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 8 JUNE 1970
Remimeo

LOW TA HANDLING

A person whose TA is low is in a state of overwhelm.

Poor TRs or rough auditing easily drive the TA down.

A TA can go low during a run like on engrams, and can come back up when actual erasure occurs.

Usually a person whose TA goes below 2.0 when run on incidents too steep for him will get low TA. A low TA is of course any TA below 2.0.

An occasional cause of this is as simple as the meter not being trimmed. Sweaty hands, improper electrodes, and sometimes a faulty meter also cause a “low TA” to appear.

Heavy processes like LX 1-2-3 are sometimes an overwhelm.

An invalidative look on an Examiner’s face can drive a TA down a bit. Cold cans can send it UP high.

Lack of rest or time of the day gives some cases a low or high TA. At 2:00 a.m. TAs often are very high, for instance.

Persons with low TAs tend to be somewhat inactive in life and non-causative.

When audited with poor TRs or on processes too steep some persons’ TAs go low (below 2.0).

An F/N is NEVER an F/N when above 3.0 or below 2.0.

Life repairs and auditing repairs, light processes and no goof auditing are the proper actions for low TA cases.

Auditors whose pcs’ TAs go low should look to the flawlessness of their auditing, the ease of their TRs and refuse any heavy overwhelm type C/Ses for such pcs.

Good Two-Way Comm on troubling subjects, use of prepared lists on life, mild close to objective processes, no forcing over protests, never running processes that don’t read first, getting the pc out of being effect and toward being cause, extroverting the pc’s attention with objective processes all work well on low TA cases.

The actual technical reason for low TAs is found in higher levels and does not concern and would be of no use to lower level pcs.

Take it easy. Don’t goof as auditor or C/S are the keynotes of low TA cases. My opinion on this is that people worry too much about low TAs.

On Flag where auditing is done like silk we haven’t seen any low TAs for ages.

LRH:dz.rd 							L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1970 						Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 8 SEPTEMBER 1970RA
REVISED 18 NOVEMBER 1973
REVISED 24 OCTOBER 1975
Remimeo	
Qual Div	
Examiner’s Hat
E/O Hat
EXAMINER’S 24 HOUR RULE

A flubbed session is visible at the Examiner.

Regardless of the worksheet or report, any session ending with Bad Indicators, above 3.0 TA or below 2.0 with no F/N or an ARC Break needle, a Stage 4 needle, a rock slam, a stuck needle, still or a dirty needle independent of TA position indicates a non-optimum session.

When an Examiner sees any one of these following four manifestations in a pc after a session:

1. 	Non-optimum TA position (above 3, below 2).

2. 	Non-optimum needle (ARC Brk needle, Stage 4, rock slam, stuck, still or dirty).

3. 	Bad Indicators as per HCOB on BIs.

4. 	Non-optimum statement from pc, critical, hostile, belittling, sad, etc.

The Examiner applies the 24 Hour Rule.

This Rule is:

ANY GOOFED SESSION MUST BE REPAIRED WITHIN 24 HOURS.

The reason for the rule is that occasionally, particularly when a person has had a sickly life, physical illness will key in after a session goof.

Such are purely C/S or auditing flubs.

A C/S flub consists of gross violations of case programming.

Auditing flubs consist of corny things like running a Rud but no F/N, failure to flatten a Chain, bad TRs, auditing over out-ruds, chopping the pc before full End Phenomena is attained.

Evaluation or even chatter after the session can upset a pc that ended session on F/N VGIs.

IN ALL CASES as per I to 4 above the EXAMINER paper clips a RED CARD on the outside of the FRONT COVER OF THE FOLDER and marks on it THE DATE AND HOUR of the Examination as well as places the EXAM REPORT in the folder, the Examiner logs it in his log in RED BALLPOINT.

The EXAMINER must see that the C/S receives this folder as soon as possible.

The C/S gives total priority to C/Sing it and it is given priority in auditing that C/S.

The pc may even be asked to wait if it can be done in the next hour or two.

THE FASTER THE FLUBBED SESSION IS REPAIRED THE EASIER IT IS TO REPAIR.

Sessions which are left unrepaired for more than 24 hours occasionally find the pc physically ill. If repaired quickly or at least within 24 hours no physical reaction results.

The illness will be a key-in of illnesses the pc often had before any auditing. All the flubbed auditing does is key it in, it itself makes no one ill.

If you check folders of ill pcs you will find usually a long period of no-auditing or a flubbed session a few days before the onset of the illness.

Pcs who have not been properly programmed but have been audited on random this or that instead of Progress, Advance and Class and Grade Chart to fully completed grades are the most likely to become ill.

Penalty for violation of the 24 Hour Rule is loss of a day’s stats for the division, the day being that day when the unrepaired flub occurred and subtracted at the time the flub is found.

If a flubbed session is found hidden and not disclosed the division loses all its stats for that week.

This action is important.

If C/Ses and auditors made no flubs whatever they would really be getting top results on pcs.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder 

LRH:sb.rd	
copyright © 1970, 1973, 1975                   	
by  L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 28 NOVEMBER 1970 
Remimeo 
Class VIIIs 
Class VIII Chksheet
C/S Series 22

PSYCHOSIS

Through a slight change of procedure on certain preclears I have been able to view the underlying motives and mechanisms of psychosis.

Very possibly this is the first time the mechanisms which bring about insanity have been fully viewed. I must say that it requires a bit of confronting.

The alleviation of the condition of insanity has also been accomplished now and the footnote in Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health concerning future research into this field can be considered fulfilled.

The things a C/S should know about insanity are as follows:

HIGHER PERCENT

About 15% to 20% of the human race apparently is insane or certainly a much higher percent than was estimated.

The truly insane do not necessarily act insane visibly. They are not the psychiatric obvious cases who go rigid for years or scream for days. This is observed only in the last stages or during temporary stress.

Under apparent social behavior the continual crimes knowingly committed by the insane are much more vicious than ever has been catalogued in psychiatric texts.

The actions of the insane are not “unconscious”. They are completely aware of what they are doing.

All insane actions are entirely justified and seem wholly rational to them. As they have no reality on the harmful and irrational nature of their conduct it does not often register on an E-Meter.

The product of their post duties is destructive but is excused as ignorance or errors.

As cases in normal processing they roller coaster continually.

They nearly always have a fixed emotional tone. It does not vary in nearly all insane people. In a very few it is cyclic, high then low.

All characteristics classified as those of the “suppressive person” are in fact those of an insane person.

The easiest ways for a C/S to detect the insane are:

1. 	Pretending to do a post or duties, the real consistent result is destructive to the group in terms of breakage, lost items, injured business, etc.

2. 	The case is no case gain or roller coaster and is covered under “PTS symptoms”.

3. 	They are usually chronically physically ill.

4. 	They have a deep but carefully masked hatred of anyone who seeks to help them.

5. 	The result of their “help” is actually injurious.

6. 	They often seek transfers or wish to leave.

7. 	They are involved in warfare with conflicts around them which are invisible to others. One wonders how they can be so involved or get so involved in so much hostility.

TYPES

The German psychiatric 1500 or so “different types of insanity” are just different symptoms of the same cause. There is only one insanity and from it springs different manifestations. Psychiatry erred in calling these different types and trying to invent different treatments.

DEFINITION

Insanity can now be precisely defined.

The definition is:

INSANITY IS THE OVERT OR COVERT BUT ALWAYS COMPLEX AND CONTINUOUS DETERMINATION TO HARM OR DESTROY.

Possibly the only frightening thing about it is the cleverness with which it can be hidden.

Whereas a sane person can become angry or upset and a bit destructive for short periods, he or she recovers. The insane mask it, are misemotional continuously and do not recover. (Except by modern processing.)

THE NATURE OF MAN

Man is basically good. This is obvious. For when he begins to do evil he seeks to destroy his memory in order to change and seeks to destroy his body. He seeks to check his evil impulses by inhibiting his own skill and strength.

He can act in a very evil fashion but his basic nature then makes it mandatory that he lessens himself in many ways.

The towering “strength” of a madman is a rarity and is compensated by efforts at self-destruction.

Man’s mortality, his “one life” fixation, all stem from his efforts to check himself, obliterate his memory in a fruitless effort to change his conduct and his self-destructive habits and impulses and losses of skills and abilities.

As this rationale proves out completely in processing and fits all cases observed, we have for the first time proof of his actual nature.
As only around 20% are insane, and as those who previously worked in the mental field were themselves mainly insane, Man as a whole has been assigned an evil repute. Govemments, where such personalities exist, listen to the opinion of the insane and apply the characteristic of 20% to the entire hundred percent.

This gives an 80% wrong diagnosis. Which is why mental science itself was destructive when used by states.

TECHNIQUES

The only technique available at this writing which will benefit the insane is contained in all the overt-motivator sequences and Grade II technology.

At Flag at this writing new improvement on this exists but it is so powerful that slight errors in use can cause a psychotic break in the insane. It therefore will only be exported for use by specially trained persons and this programming will require quite a while.

MEANWHILE it helps the C/S to know and use these firm rules:

ALWAYS RUN DIANETIC TRIPLES.

Never run Singles. The overt side (Flow 2) is vital. If you only run Flow 1 Motivators, the pc will not recover fully. Further running Flow 1 (Motivator only) any psychotic being processed will not recover but may even trigger into a psychotic break. If one never ran anything but motivators, psychotic manifestations would not erase.

DEPEND ON EXPANDED GRADE II TECHNOLOGY TO EASE OFF OR HANDLE THE INSANE.

Don’t keep asking what’s been done to him as he’ll trigger.

A new discovery on this is that when you run out the motivator the person gets a higher reality on his overts. If you ran out all his motivators he would have no reason for his overts. If these are not then run out he might cave himself in.

PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR

The APPARENT pattern of insane behavior is to come in (ask for processing, go on staff, etc) with the advertised intention of being helped or helping, then mess up either as a pc or on post, then state how bad it all is and leave. It looks obvious enough. He came, found it bad, left.

That is only the APPARENT behavior. APPARENT REASONS.

Based on numerous cases, this is the real cycle. Hearing of something good that might help these hateful awful rotten nasty people, the psycho comes in, wrecks this, upsets that, caves in this one, chops up that one and WHEN SOMEBODY SAYS “NO!” the psychotic either

(a) 	Caves himself in physically or

(b) 	Runs away.

The psychotic is motivated by intent to harm.

If he realizes he is harming things he shouldn’t, he caves himself in. If he is afraid he will be found out, he runs.
In the psychotic the impulse is quite conscious.

CONCLUSION

None of this is very nice. It is hard to confront. Even I find it so.

Freud thought all men had a hidden monster in them for he dealt mainly with the psychotic and their behavior was what he saw.

All men are not like this. The percentage that are is greater than I supposed but is a long way from all men.

Sometimes one only becomes aware of these when things are getting worked on and improved. They stay on as long as it can be made bad or there is hope it can be destroyed. Then when attention is given to improvement they blow.

Artists, writers often have these types hanging around them as there is someone or something there to be destroyed. When success or failure to destroy or possible detection appears on the scene they blow, often as destructively as possible.

Orgs are subjected to a lot of this. A psychotic sometimes succeeds in blowing off good staff. And then sooner or later realizes how evil he is acting and sickens or leaves.

The society is not geared to any of this at all. The insane walk around wrecking the place and decent people think it’s “human nature” or “inevitable” or a “bad childhood”.

As of this writing the insane can be handled. The proof of any pudding is the processing. And this is successful. It is also rather swift. But, as I say, it is so swift the special technique has to be done by the specially trained flubless auditor.

For a long while I’ve realized that we would have to be able to handle insane people as the psychiatrist is fading. I have had opportunity to work on the problem. And have it handled. Until it is fully released, the C/S will benefit greatly from knowing the above as these come on his lines far more often than he has suspected.

The insane can be helped. They are not hopeless.

I trust this data will be of use.

	L. RON HUBBARD 
	Founder 
LRH: rr.rd 
Copyright © 1970 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

SCIENTOLOGY

0 - 8

by
L.Ron Hubbard

TABLE OF CONTENTS

THE FACTORS	1
THE Qs	3
CONSIDERATION AND MECHANICS	4
THE AXIOMS OF SCIENTOLOGY	5
THIS IS THE AUDITOR’S CODE OF 1968	11
THE CODE OF HONOR	13
THE CODE OF A SCIENTOLOGIST	14
THE CREED OF THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY	15
THE SUPERVISOR’S CODE AND STABLE DATA	16
THE CREDO OF A GOOD AND SKILLED MANAGER	19
PRIMARY AXIOMS FROM THE ORIGINAL THESIS	21
THE FUNDAMENTAL AXIOMS OF DIANETICS	22
THE LOGICS	24
THE AXIOMS OF DIANETICS	27
THE FIFTY-FIVE HUMAN PERCEPTIONS	42
A BOOK OF SCALES	44
THE TONE SCALE	45
EMOTION AND AFFINITY SCALE	46
REALITY AND COMMUNICATION SCALE	47
BEHAVIOR AND PHYSIOLOGICAL SCALE	49
SCALE OF MOTION	51
THE EMOTIONAL TONE SCALE	52
TONE SCALE IN FULL	53
DEI TO CDEI	55
CDEI CYCLE WITH LOWER SCALE	57
POINTS OF CASE ADDRESS	58
SCALE OF IDENTIFICATION	59
A TABLE OF RELATIONSHIPS	60
KNOW TO MYSTERY SCALE	61
SCALE OF KNOWINGNESS	62
A PAN DETERMINISM SCALE	63
RESPONSIBILITY SCALE	64
HAVINGNESS SCALE	65
THE PRE-HAVINGNESS SCALE	66
EFFECT SCALE	67
EFFECT SCALE	70
AN AWARENESS SCALE	71
SCALE OF CONFRONT	72
REALITY-SPOTTING BY E-METER	73
TIME SENSE, DETERIORATION OF	74
CHARGE AND THE TIME TRACK	74
STATE OF CASE SCALE	75
AWARENESS CHARACTERISTICS	76
LOWER AWARENESS LEVELS	77
THE BRIDGE	78
THE AXIOMS OF S.O.P. 8-C	81

THE FACTORS  

	(Summation of the considerations and examinations of the human spirit and the material universe completed between A.D. 1923 and 1953) 

1. 	Before the beginning was a Cause and the entire purpose of the cause was the creation of effect.

2. 	In the beginning and forever is the decision and the decision is TO BE.

3. 	The first action of beingness is to assume a viewpoint.

4. 	The second action of beingness is to extend from the viewpoint, points to view, which are dimension points.

5. 	Thus there is space created, for the definition of space is: viewpoint of dimension. And the purpose of a dimension point is space and a point of view.

6. 	The action of a dimension point is reaching and withdrawing.

7. 	And from the viewpoint to the dimension points there are connection and interchange. Thus new dimension points are made. Thus there is communication.

8. 	And thus there is light.

9. 	And thus there is energy.

10. 	And thus there is life.

11. 	But there are other viewpoints and these viewpoints outthrust points to view. And there comes about an interchange amongst viewpoints; but the interchange is never otherwise than in terms of exchanging dimension points.

12. 	The dimension point can be moved by the viewpoint, for the viewpoint, in addition to creative ability and consideration, possesses volition and potential independence of action; and the viewpoint, viewing dimension points, can change in relation to its own or other dimension points or viewpoints. Thus comes about all the fundamentals there are to motion.

13. 	The dimension points are each and every one, whether large or small, SOLID. And they are solid solely because the viewpoints say they are solid.

14. 	Many dimension points combine into larges gases, fluids or solids. Thus there is matter. But the most valued point is  admiration, and admiration is so strong its absence alone permits persistence.

15. 	The dimension point can be different from other dimension points and thus can possess an individual quality. And many dimension points can possess a similar quality, and others can possess a similar quality unto themselves. Thus comes about the quality of classes of matter.

16. 	The viewpoint can combine dimension points into forms and the forms can be simple or complex and can be at different distances from the viewpoints and so there can be combinations of form. And the forms are capable of motion and  the viewpoints are capable of motion and so there can be motion of forms.

17. 	And the opinion of the viewpoint regulates the consideration of the forms, their stillness or their motion, and these considerations consist of assignment of beauty or ugliness to the forms and these considerations alone are art.

18. 	It is the opinions of the viewpoints that some of these forms should endure. Thus there is survival.

19. 	And the viewpoint can never perish; but the form can perish.

20. 	And the many viewpoints, interacting, become dependent upon one another’s forms and do not choose to distinguish completely the ownership of dimension points and so comes about a dependency upon the dimension points and upon the other viewpoints.

21. 	From this comes a consistency of viewpoint of the interaction of dimension points and this, regulated, is TIME.

22. 	And there are universes.

23. 	The universes, then, are three in number: the universe created by one viewpoint, the universe created by every other viewpoint, the universe created by the mutual action of viewpoints which is agreed to be upheld - the physical universe.

24. 	And the viewpoints are never seen. And the viewpoints consider more and more that the dimension points are valuable. And the viewpoints try to become the anchor points and forget that they can create more points and space and forms. Thus comes about scarcity. And the dimension points can perish and so the viewpoints assume that they, too, can perish. 

25. 	Thus comes about death.

26. 	The manifestations of pleasure and pain, of thought, emotion and effort, of thinking, of sensation, of affinity, reality, communication, of behavior and being are thus derived and the riddles of our universe are apparently contained and answered herein. There IS beingness, but Man believes there is only becomingness.

28.  	The  resolution  of  any problem  posed  hereby  is  the establishment  of   viewpoints  and  dimension   points.  the betterment  of  condition  and  concourse  amongst  dimension points,  and,   thereby,  viewpoints,   and  the   remedy  of abundance  or  scarcity in all  things, pleasant or  ugly, by the rehabilitation of the ability  of the viewpoint to assume points  of  view and  create  and  uncreate, neglect,  start, change  and  stop  dimension  points   of  any  kind  at  the determinism  of   the  viewpoint.  Certainty  in   all  three universes  must  be regained,  for  certainty,  not data,  is knowledge.

29.  	In the  opinion  of the  viewpoint,  any beingness,  anything, is better than nothing,  any effect is better than no effect, any  universe better  than no universe,  any particle better than  no particle, but  the particle of  admiration is best of all. 

30. 	And above  these things there might  be speculation only. And below these things there is  the playing of the game. But these things  which are written  here Man can  experience and know. And  some may care to  teach these things and  some may care to  use them to  assist those  in distress and  some may desire to  employ them to make  individuals and organizations more able and so  give to Earth a culture of  which we can be proud.

	Humbly tendered as a gift to Man
	by L.Ron Hubbard, April 23, 1953
THE Qs

(THE PRELOGICS)

Q1  	SELF-DETERMINISM IS  THE COMMON  DENOMINATOR OF  ALL LIFE IMPULSES.

(A) 	DEFINITION OF SELF-DETERMINISM:  THE ABILITY TO LOCATE IN SPACE AND TIME ENERGY AND  MATTER, ALSO THE ABILITY TO LOCATE IN  SPACE AND  TIME ENERGY  AND MATTER,  ALSO THE  ABILITY TO CREATE SPACE  AND TIME IN  WHICH TO CREATE AND  LOCATE ENERGY AND MATTER.

(B) 	THE  IDENTIFICATION OF  THE SOURCE  OF THAT  WHICH PLACES MATTER  AND  ENERGY AND  ORIGINATES  SPACE  AND TIME  IS  NOT NECESSARY TO THE RESOLUTION OF THIS PROBLEM AT THIS TIME.

Q2 	THETA CREATES SPACE, ENERGY AND OBJECTS BY POSTULATES.

Q3   	UNIVERSES    ARE   CREATED   BY   THE    APPLICATION   OF SELF-DETERMINISM ON EIGHT DYNAMICS.

Q4  	SELF-DETERMINISM, APPLIED,  WILL CREATE,  ALTER, CONSERVE AND POSSIBLY DESTROY UNIVERSES.

Q5  	THE ACTION  CYCLE IS ONE OF THE ABILITIES  OF A THETAN. AN ACTION CYCLE  GOES FROM  40.0 TO  O.0 ON  THE TONE  SCALE. AN ACTION  CYCLE IS  THE CREATION,  GROWTH, CONSERVATION,  DECAY AND  DEATH  OR DESTRUCTION OF  ENERGY AND MATTER IN  A SPACE.ACTION CYCLES PRODUCE TIME.

NOTE: This  edition restores the  Q numbers as  given  in the Philadelphia Doctorate Course Lectures of December, 1952.

CONSIDERATION AND MECHANICS 

CONSIDERATIONS  TAKE  RANK  OVER   THE  MECHANICS  OF  SPACE, ENERGY,   AND TIME.  By  this it  is meant  that  an idea  or opinion  is, fundamentally,  superior to  space, energy,  and time, or  organizations of form,  since it is  conceived that space, energy,  and time  are themselves  broadly agreed-upon considerations.  That  so  many   minds  agree  brings  about Reality   in  the form  of  space,  energy, and  time.  These mechanics, then, of  space, energy, and time  are the product of agreed-upon considerations mutually held by life.  

The aspects of existence when viewed from  the level of Man, however, is a reverse of the greater truth above for Man works on the secondary opinion that mechanics are real, and that his own personal considerations are less important than space, energy, and time. This is an inversion. These mechanics of space, energy, and time, the forms, objects and combinations thereof, have taken such precedence in Man that they have become more important than considerations as such,and so his ability is overpowered and he is unable to act freely in the framework of mechanics. Man, therefore, has an inverted view. Whereas considerations such as those he daily makes are the actual source of space, energy, time and forms, Man is operating so as not to alter his basic considerations; he therefore invalidates himself by supposing another determinism of space, energy, time and form. Although he is part of that which created these, he gives them such strength and validity that his own considerations thereafter must fall subordinate to space, energy, time, and form, and so he cannot alter the Universe in which he dwells. 

The freedom of an individual depends upon that individual’s freedom to alter his considerations of space,energy, time, and forms of life and his roles in it. If he cannot change his mind about these, he is then fixed and enslaved amidst barriers such as those of the physical universe, and barriers of his own creation. Man thus is seen to be enslaved by barriers of his own creation. He creates these barriers himself, or by agreeing with things which hold these barriers to be actual.

There is a basic series of assumptions in processing, which assumptions do not alter the philosophy of Scientology. The first of these assumptions is that Man can have a greater freedom. The second is that so long as he remains relatively sane, he desires a greater freedom. And the third assumption is that the auditor desires to deliver a greater freedom to that person with whom he is working. If these assumptions are not agreed upon and are not used, then auditing degenerates into “the observation of effect”, which is, of course, a goal-less, soulless pursuit, and is, indeed, a pursuit which has degraded what is called modern science.

The goal of processing is to bring an individual into such thorough communication with the physical universe that he can regain the power and ability of his own considerations (postulates). 

THE AXIOMS OF SCIENTOLOGY

AXIOM 1. 	LIFE IS BASICALLY A STATIC.

	Definition:  a Life Static has no mass, no motion, no wavelength, no location in space or in time. It has the ability to postulate and to perceive.

AXIOM 2. 	THE STATIC IS CAPABLE OF CONSIDERATIONS, POSTULATES,                  AND OPINIONS.

AXIOM 3. 	SPACE, ENERGY, OBJECTS, FORM AND TIME ARE THE RESULT                                                                     OF CONSIDERATIONS MADE AND/OR AGREED UPON OR NOT BY                     THE STATIC, AND ARE PERCEIVED SOLELY BECAUSE THE                   STATIC CONSIDERS THAT IT CAN PERCEIVE THEM. 

AXIOM 4. 	SPACE IS A VIEWPOINT OF DIMENSION.

AXIOM 5. 	ENERGY CONSISTS OF POSTULATED PARTICLES IN SPACE.

AXIOM 6. 	OBJECTS CONSIST OF GROUPED PARTICLES AND SOLIDS.

AXIOM 7. 	TIME IS BASICALLY A POSTULATE THAT SPACE AND PARTICLES                 WILL PERSIST.

AXIOM 8.	THE APPARENCY OF TIME IS THE CHANGE OF POSITION OF                       PARTICLES IN SPACE.

AXIOM 9. 	CHANGE IS THE PRIMARY MANIFESTATION OF TIME.

AXIOM 10. 	THE HIGHEST PURPOSE IN THIS UNIVERSE IS THE CREATION OF AN EFFECT.
 
AXIOM 11.	THE CONSIDERATIONS RESULTING IN CONDITIONS OF EXISTENCE ARE FOUR-FOLD.

(a) 	AS-IS-NESS is the condition of immediate creation persistence, and is the condition of existence which exists at the moment of creation and the moment of destruction, and is different  from other considerations in that it does not contain survival.

(b) 	ALTER-IS-NESS is the consideration which introduces change and therefore time and persistence, into an AS-IS-NESS to obtain persistency.

(c) 	IS-NESS is an apparency of existence brought about by the continuous alteration of an AS-IS-NESS. This is  called, when agreed upon, Reality.

(d) 	NOT-IS-NESS is the effort to handle IS-NESS by reducing its condition through the use of force. It is an apparency and cannot entirely vanquish an IS-NESS.

AXIOM12. 	THE PRIMARY CONDITION OF ANY UNIVERSE IS THAT TWO SPACES, ENERGIES, OR OBJECTS MUST NOT OCCUPY THE SAME SPACE. WHEN THIS CONDITION IS VIOLATED (PERFECT DUPLICATE) THE APPARENCY OF ANY UNIVERSE OR ANY PART THERE-OF IS NULLED.
AXIOM 13. 	THE CYCLE OF ACTION OF THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE IS: CREATE,                      SURVIVE (PERSIST),  DESTROY.

AXIOM 14. SURVIVAL IS ACCOMPLISHED BY ALTER-IS-NESS AND NOT-IS-                 NESS, BY WHICH IS GAINED THE PERSISTENCY KNOWN AS               TIME.

AXIOM 15. 	CREATION IS ACCOMPLISHED BY THE POSTULATION OF AN AS-IS-NESS.

AXIOM 16.	COMPLETE DESTRUCTION IS ACCOMPLISHED BY THE POSTULATION OF THE AS-IS-NESS OF ANY EXISTENCE AND THE             PARTS THEREOF.

AXIOM 17.	THE STATIC, HAVING POSTULATED AS-IS-NESS, THEN PRACTICES ALTER-IS-NESS, AND SO ACHIEVES THE APPARENCY OF IS-NESS AND SO OBTAINS REALITY.

AXIOM 18.	THE STATIC, IN PRACTICING NOT-IS-NESS, BRINGS ABOUT THE          PERSISTENCE OF UNWANTED EXISTENCES, AND SO BRINGS             ABOUT UNREALITY, WHICH INCLUDES FORGETFULNESS, UNCONSCIOUSNESS, AND OTHER UNDESIRABLE STATES.

AXIOM 19.	BRINGING THE STATIC TO VIEW AS-IS ANY CONDITION                                                                                                    DEVALUATES THAT CONDITION.

AXIOM 20.	BRINGING THE STATIC TO CREATE A PERFECT DUPLICATE CAUSES THE VANISHMENT OF ANY EXISTENCE OR PART THEREOF.

		A perfect duplicate is an additional creation of the object, its energy, and space, in its own space, in its own time, using its own energy. This violates the condition that two objects must not occupy the same space, and causes a vanishment of the object.

AXIOM 21.	UNDERSTANDING IS COMPOSED OF AFFINITY, REALITY, AND               COMMUNICATION.

AXIOM 22.	THE PRACTICE OF NOT-IS-NESS REDUCES UNDERSTANDING.

AXIOM 23.	THE STATIC HAS THE CAPABILITY OF TOTAL KNOWINGNESS.                   TOTAL KNOWINGNESS WOULD CONSIST OF TOTAL ARC. 

AXIOM 24.	TOTAL ARC WOULD BRING ABOUT THE VANISHMENT OF ALL                      MECHANICAL CONDITIONS OF EXISTENCE.

AXIOM 25.	AFFINITY IS A SCALE OF ATTITUDES WHICH FALLS AWAY FROM             THE CO-EXISTENCE OF STATIC, THROUGH THE INTERPOSITIONS OF DISTANCE AND ENERGY, TO CREATE IDENTITY, DOWN TO CLOSE PROXIMITY BUT MYSTERY.

		By the practice of Is-ness (Beingness) and Not-is-ness (refusal to Be) individuation progresses from the Knowingness of complete identification down through the introduction of more and more distance and less and less duplication, through Lookingness, Emotingness, Effortingness, Thinkingness, Symbolizingness, Eatingness, Sexingness, and so through to not-Knowingness (Mystery). Until the point of Mystery is reached, some communication is possible, but even at Mystery an attempt to communicate continues. Here we have, in the case of an individual, a gradual falling away from the belief that one can assume a complete Affinity down to the conviction that all is a complete Mystery. Any individual is somewhere on this Know-to-Mystery scale. The original Chart of Human Evaluation was the Emotion section of this scale. 

AXIOM 26.	REALITY IS THE AGREED-UPON APPARENCY OF EXISTENCE.

AXIOM 27.	AN ACTUALITY CAN EXIST FOR ONE INDIVIDUALLY, BUT WHEN              IT IS AGREED WITH BY OTHERS IT CAN THEN BE SAID TO BE A           REALITY.

		The anatomy of Reality is contained in Is-ness, which is composed of As-is-ness and Alter-is-ness. Is-ness is an apparency, it is not an Actuality. The Actuality is As-is-ness altered so as to obtain a persistency.Unreality is the consequence and apparency of the practice of Not-is-ness.

AXIOM 28.	COMMUNICATION IS THE CONSIDERATION AND ACTION OF                 COMPELLING AN IMPULSE OR PARTICLE FROM SOURCE-POINT               ACROSS A DISTANCE TO RECEIPT  POINT, WITH THE INTENTION OF BRINGING INTO BEING AT THE RECEIPT-POINT A DUPLICATION AND UNDERSTANDING OF THAT WHICH EMANATED FROM THE SOURCE- POINT.

		The formula of Communication is: Cause, Distance, Effect, with Intention, Attention and Duplication WITH UNDERSTANDING. The component parts of Communication are Consideration, Intention, Attention, Cause, Source-point, Distance, Effect, Receipt-point, Duplication, Understanding, the Velocity of the impulse or particle, Nothingness or Somethingness. A non-communication consists of Barriers. Barriers consist of Space, Interpositions (such as walls and screens of fast-moving particles), and Time. A communication, by definition, does not need to be two-way. When a communication is returned, the formula is repeated, with the receipt-point now becoming a source point and the former source-point now becoming a receipt-point.

AXIOM 29.	IN ORDER TO CAUSE AN AS-IS-NESS TO PERSIST, ONE MUST ASSIGN OTHER AUTHORSHIP TO THE CREATION THAN HIS OWN. OTHERWISE HIS VIEW OF IT WOULD CAUSE ITS VANISHMENT.

		Any space, energy, form, object, individual, or physical universe condition can exist only when an alteration has occurred of the original As-is-ness so as to prevent a casual view from vanishing it. In other words, anything which is persisting must contain a “lie” so that the original consideration is not completely duplicated.

AXIOM 30.	THE GENERAL RULE OF AUDITING IS THAT ANYTHING WHICH             IS IS UNWANTED AND YET PERSISTS MUST BE THOROUGHLY            VIEWED, AT WHICH TIME IT WILL VANISH.

		If only partially viewed, its intensity, at least, will decrease.

AXIOM 31.	GOODNESS AND BADNESS, BEAUTIFULNESS AND UGLINESS,                                             ARE ALIKE CONSIDERATIONS AND HAVE NO OTHER BASIS THAN                                  OPINION.

AXIOM 32.	ANYTHING WHICH IS NOT DIRECTLY OBSERVED TENDS TO PERSIST.

AXIOM 33. 	ANY AS-IS-NESS WHICH IS ALTERED BY NOT-IS-NESS (BY FORCE) TENDS TO PERSIST.
AXIOM 34. 	ANY IS-NESS, WHEN ALTERED BY FORCE, TENDS TO PERSIST.

AXIOM 35. 	THE ULTIMATE TRUTH IS A STATIC.

		A Static has no mass, meaning, mobility, no wave-length,  no time, no location in space, no space. This has the technical name of “Basic Truth”.

AXIOM 36.	A LIE IS A SECOND POSTULATE, STATEMENT OR CONDITION DESIGNED TO MASK A PRIMARY POSTULATE WHICH IS                          PERMITTED TO REMAIN.

EXAMPLES:

		Neither truth nor a lie is a motion or alteration of a particle from one position to another.
	
		A lie is a statement that a particle having moved did not move, or a statement that a particle, not having moved, did move.

		The basic lie is that a consideration which was made was not made or that it was different.

AXIOM 37.	WHEN A PRIMARY CONSIDERATION IS ALTERED BUT STILL                       EXISTS, PERSISTENCE IS ACHIEVED FOR THE ALTERING CONSIDERATION.

		All persistence depends on the Basic Truth, but the persistence is of the altering consideration, for the Basic Truth has neither persistence nor impersistence.

AXIOM 38.  	1: 	STUPIDITY IS THE UNKNOWNNESS OF CONSIDERATION.
2: 	MECHANICAL DEFINITION: STUPIDITY IS UNKNOWNESS OF TIME, PLACE, FORM AND EVENT.
1: 	TRUTH IS THE EXACT CONSIDERATION.
2: 	TRUTH IS THE EXACT TIME, PLACE, FORM AND EVENT.

	Thus we see that failure to discover Truth brings about  stupidity.

	Thus we see that the discovery of Truth would bring about an As-is-ness by actual experiment.

	Thus we see that an ultimate truth would have no time, place, form or event.

	Thus, then, we perceive that we can achieve a persistence only when we mask a truth.

	Lying is an alteration of time, place, event, or form.

	Lying becomes Alter-is-ness, becomes Stupidity. (The blackness of cases is an accumulation of the case’s own or another’s lies.)

	Anything which persists must avoid As-is-ness. Thus, any thing, to persist, must contain a lie.

AXIOM 39. 	LIFE POSES PROBLEMS FOR ITS OWN SOLUTION.

AXIOM 40. 	ANY PROBLEM, TO BE A PROBLEM, MUST CONTAIN A LIE, IF IT WERE TRUTH, IT WOULD UNMOCK.
		An “unsolvable problem” would have the greatest persistence. It would also contain the greatest number of altered facts. To make a problem, one must introduce Alter-is-ness.

AXIOM 41. 	THAT INTO WHICH ALTER-IS-NESS IS INTRODUCED BECOMES A PROBLEM.

AXIOM 42. 	MEST (MATTER, ENERGY, SPACE, TIME) PERSISTS BECAUSE IT IS A PROBLEM.

AXIOM 43. 	TIME IS THE PRIMARY SOURCE OF UNTRUTH.

	It is a problem because it contains Alter-is-ness.

AXIOM 44. 	THETA (THE STATIC) HAS NO LOCATION IN MATTER, ENERGY, SPACE OR TIME. IT IS CAPABLE OF CONSIDERATION.

AXIOM 45.	THETA CAN CONSIDER ITSELF TO BE PLACED, AT WHICH MOMENT IT BECOMES PLACED, AND TO THAT DEGREE A PROBLEM.

AXIOM 46. 	THETA CAN BECOME A PROBLEM BY ITS CONSIDERATIONS, BUT                 THEN BECOMES MEST.

	A problem is to some degree MEST. MEST is a problem.

AXIOM 47. 	THETA CAN RESOLVE PROBLEMS.

AXIOM 48. 	LIFE IS A GAME WHEREIN THETA AS THE STATIC SOLVES THE                   PROBLEMS OF THETA AS MEST.

AXIOM 49. 	TO SOLVE ANY PROBLEM IT IS ONLY NECESSARY TO BECOME THETA, THE SOLVER, RATHER THAN THETA, THE PROBLEM.

AXIOM 50. 	THETA AS MEST MUST CONTAIN CONSIDERATIONS WHICH ARE               LIES.

AXIOM 51. 	POSTULATES AND LIVE COMMUNICATION NOT BEING MEST AND BEING SENIOR TO MEST CAN ACCOMPLISH CHANGE IN MEST WITHOUT BRINGING ABOUT A PERSISTENCE OF MEST. THUS AUDITING CAN OCCUR.

AXIOM 52. 	MEST PERSISTS AND SOLIDIFIES TO THE DEGREE THAT IT IS                 NOT GRANTED LIFE.

AXIOM 53. 	A STABLE DATUM IS NECESSARY TO THE ALIGNMENT OF DATA.

AXIOM 54. 	A TOLERANCE OF CONFUSION AND AN AGREED-UPON STABLE             DATUM ON WHICH TO ALIGN THE DATA IN A CONFUSION ARE              AT ONCE NECESSARY FOR A SANE REACTION ON THE EIGHT              DYNAMICS.THIS DEFINES SANITY.

AXIOM 55. 	THE CYCLE OF ACTION IS A CONSIDERATION. CREATE, SURVIVE,                                       DESTROY, THE CYCLE OF ACTION ACCEPTED BY THE G.E., IS             ONLY A CONSIDERATION WHICH CAN BE CHANGED BY THE                              THETAN MAKING A NEW CONSIDERATION OR DIFFERENT ACTION CYCLES.

AXIOM 56. 	THETA BRINGS ORDER TO CHAOS.
	Corollary: Chaos brings disorder to theta.

AXIOM 57.	ORDER MANIFESTS WHEN COMMUNICATION, CONTROL, AND              HAVINGNESS ARE AVAILABLE TO THETA.

DEFINITION:	Communication: the interchange of ideas across space. Control: positive postulating, which is intention, and  the execution thereof.Havingness: that which permits the experience of mass and pressure.

AXIOM 58.	INTELLIGENCE AND JUDGEMENT ARE MEASURED BY THE ABILITY TO EVALUATE RELATIVE IMPORTANCES.

COROLLARY: 	THE ABILITY TO EVALUATE IMPORTANCES AND UNINIMPORTANCES IS THE HIGHEST FACULTY OF LOGIC.

COROLLARY: 		IDENTIFICATION IS A MONOTONE ASSIGNMENT OF IMPORTANCE.

COROLLARY: 		IDENTIFICATION IS THE INABILITY TO EVALUATE DIFFERENCES IN TIME, LOCATION, FORM, COMPOSITION OR IMPORTANCE.

THIS IS THE AUDITOR’S CODE OF 1968

	It supersedes any earlier Codes. It has been developed as part of the Standard Tech Programme. It is the official Auditor’s Code.

	It is required of auditors and students under training that they know this Code by heart, know what it means, and as they process, practice it. It is one thing to know it - another to practice it. A good auditor does both. It is not something to be read, agreed with and forgotten.

	Following it means success in cases. Neglecting any part of it means failures. It combines the arduously won experiences collected during eighteen years from the practice of thousands of auditors.

	We want successes.

LRH
THE AUDITOR   Issue 43

THE AUDITOR’S CODE AD 18

IN CELEBRATION OF THE 100 PERCENT GAINS ATTAINABLE BY STANDARD TECH I HEREBY PROMISE AS AN AUDITOR TO FOLLOW
THE AUDITOR’S CODE:

(1) 	I promise not to evaluate for the preclear or tell him what he should think about his case in session.

(2) 	I promise not to invalidate the preclear’s case or gains in or out of session.

(3) 	I promise to administer only Standard Tech to a pre-clear in the standard way.

(4) 	I promise to keep all auditing appointments once made.

(5) 	I promise not to process a preclear who has not had sufficient rest and who is physically tired.

(6) 	I promise not to process a preclear who is improperly fed or hungry.

(7) 	I promise not to permit a frequent change of auditors.

(8)	I promise not to sympathize with a preclear, but be effective.

(9) 	I promise not to let the preclear end session on his own determinism, but to finish off those cycles I have begun.

(10) 	I promise never to walk off from a preclear in session.

(11) 	I promise never to get angry with a preclear in session.

(12) 	I promise to run every major case action to a floating needle.

(13) 	I promise never to run any one action beyond its floating needle.
(14) 	I promise to grant beingness to the preclear in session.

(15) 	I promise not to mix the processes of Scientology with other practices except when the preclear is physically ill and only medical means will serve.

(16) 	I promise to maintain Communication with the preclear and not to cut his comm or permit him to overrun in session.

(17) 	I promise not to enter comments, expressions or enturbulence into a session that distract a preclear from his case.

(18) 	I promise to continue to give the preclear the process or auditing command when needed in the session.

(19) 	I promise not to let a preclear run a wrongly understood command.

(20) 	I promise not to explain, justify or make excuses in session for any auditor mistakes whether real or imagined.

(21) 	I promise to estimate the current case state of a pre-clear only by Standard Case Supervision data and not to diverge because of some imagined difference in the case.

(22) 	I promise never to use the secrets of a preclear divulged in session for                punishment or personal gain.

(23) 	I promise to see that any fee received for processing is refunded following the policies of the Claims Verification Board, if the preclear is dissatisfied and demands it within three months after the processing, the only condition being that he may not again be processed or trained.

(24) 	I promise not to advocate Scientology only to cure illness or only to treat the insane, knowing well it was intended for spiritual gain.

(25) 	I promise to cooperate fully with the legal organizations of Dianetics and               Scientology as developed by L. Ron Hubbard in safeguarding the ethical use and practice of the subject according to the basics of Standard Tech.

(26) 	I promise to refuse to permit any being to be physically injured, violently              damaged, operated on or killed in the name of “mental treatment”.

(27) 	I promise not to permit sexual liberties or violation of the mentally  unsound.

(28) 	I promise to refuse to admit to the ranks of practitioners any being who is insane.

THE CODE OF HONOR

	No one expects the Code of Honor to be closely and tightly followed.

	An ethical code cannot be enforced. Any effort to enforce the Code of Honor would bring it into the level of a moral code. It cannot be enforced simply because it is a way of life which can exist as a way of life only as long as it is not enforced. Any other use but self-determined use of the Code of Honor would, as any Scientologist could quickly see, produce a considerable deterioration in a person. Therefore its use is a luxury use, and which is done solely on self-determined action, providing one sees eye to eye with the Code of Honor.

1. 	Never desert a comrade in need, in danger, or in trouble.

2. 	Never withdraw allegiance once granted.

3. 	Never desert a group to which you owe your support.

4. 	Never disparage yourself or minimize your strength or power.

5. 	Never need praise, approval or sympathy.

6. 	Never compromise with your own reality.

7. 	Never permit your affinity to be alloyed.

8. 	Do not give or receive communication unless you yourself desire it.

9. 	Your self determinism and your honor are more important than your body.

10. 	Your integrity to yourself is more important than your body.

11. 	Never regret yesterday. Life is in you today, and you make your tomorrow.

12. 	Never fear to hurt another in a just cause.

13. 	Don’t desire to be liked or admired.

14. 	Be your own adviser, keep your own counsel and select your own decisions.

15. 	Be true to your own goals.

THE CODE OF A SCIENTOLOGIST

As a Scientologist I pledge myself to the Code of a Scientologist for the good of all:

1. 	To keep Scientologists, the Public and the Press accurately informed concerning Scientology, the world of Mental Health and society.                                       

2. 	To use the best I know of Scientology to the best of my ability to help my family, friends, groups and the world.

3. 	To refuse to accept for processing and to refuse to accept money from any preclear or group I feel I cannot honestly help.

4. 	To decry and do all I can to abolish any and all abuses against life and Mankind.

5. 	To expose and help abolish any and all physically damaging practices in the field of Mental Health.

6. 	To help clean up and keep clean the field of Mental Health.

7. 	To bring about an atmosphere of safety and security in the field of Mental Health by eradicating its abuses and brutality.

8. 	To support true Humanitarian endeavors in the field of Human Rights.

9.      	To embrace the policy of equal justice for all.

10. 	To work for freedom of speech in the world.       

11. 	To actively decry the suppression of knowledge, wisdom, philosophy or data which would help Mankind.

12. 	To support the freedom of religion. 

13. 	To help Scientology organizations and groups ally themselves with public groups.

14. 	To teach Scientology at a level it can be understood and used by the recipients.

15. 	To stress the freedom to use Scientology as a philosophy in all its applications and variations in the humanities.
	
16. 	To insist upon standard and unvaried Scientology as an applied activity in                              ethics, processing and administration in Scientology organizations.

17. 	To take my share of responsibility for the impact of Scientology upon the world.

18. 	To increase the numbers and strength of Scientology over the world.

19. 	To set an example of the effectiveness and wisdom of Scientology.

20. 	To make this world a saner, better place.

THE CREED OF THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY

We of the Church believe:

That all men of whatever race, color or creed were created with equal rights.

That all men have inalienable rights to their own religious practices and their performance.

That all men have inalienable rights to their own lives.

That all men have inalienable rights to their sanity.

That all men have inalienable rights to their own defense.

That all men have inalienable rights to conceive, choose, assist and support their own organizations, churches and governments.

That all men have inalienable rights to think freely, to talk freely, to write freely their own opinions and to counter or utter or write upon the opinions of others.

That all men have inalienable rights to the creation of their own kind.

That the souls of men have the rights of men.

That the study of the mind and the healing of mentally caused ills should not be alienated from religion or condoned in non- religious fields.

And that no agency less than God has the power to suspend or set aside these rights, overtly or covertly.

And we of the Church believe:

That man is basically good

That he is seeking to survive

That his survival depends upon himself and upon his fellows and his attainment of brotherhood with the Universe.

And we of the Church believe that the laws of God forbid Man:

To destroy his own kind

To destroy the sanity of another

To destroy or enslave another’s soul

To destroy or reduce the survival of one’s companions or one’s
group.

And we of the Church believe

That the spirit can be saved and

That the spirit alone may save or heal the body.

THE SUPERVISOR’S CODE AND STABLE DATA

THE SUPERVISOR’S CODE

1. 	The Supervisor must never neglect an opportunity to direct a student to the actual source of Scientology data.

2. 	The Supervisor should invalidate a student’s mistake ruthlessly and use good ARC while doing it.

3. 	The Supervisor should remain in good ARC with his students at all times while they are performing training activities.

4. 	The Supervisor at all times must have a high tolerance of stupidity in his students, and must be willing to repeat any datum not understood as many times as necessary for the student to understand and acquire reality on the datum.

5. 	The Supervisor does not have a “case” in his relationship with his students, nor discuss or talk about his personal problems to the students. 

6. 	The Supervisor will, at all times, be a source point of good control and direction to his students.

7. 	The Supervisor will be able to correlate any part of Scientology to any other part and to livingness over the 8 dynamics. 

8. 	The Supervisor should be able to answer any questions concerning Scientology by directing the student to the actual source of the data. If a Supervisor cannot answer a particular question, he should always say so, and the Supervisor should always find the answer to the question from the source, and tell the student where the answer is to be found.

9. 	The Supervisor should never lie to, deceive, or misdirect a student concerning Scientology. He shall be honest at all times about it with a student.

10. 	The Supervisor must be an accomplished auditor.

11. 	The Supervisor should always set a good example to his students, such as giving good demonstrations, being on time and dressing neatly.

12. 	The Supervisor should at all times be perfectly willing and able to do anything he tells his students to do.

13. 	The Supervisor must not become emotionally involved with students of either sex while they are under his or her training.

14. 	When a supervisor makes any mistake, he is to inform the student that he has made one and rectify it immediately. This datum embraces all phases in training demonstrations, lectures and processing, etc. He is never to hide the fact that he made the mistake.

15. 	The Supervisor should never neglect to give praise to his students when due. 

16. 	The Supervisor to some degree should be pan-determined about the Supervisor-student relationship.
17. 	When a Supervisor lets a student control, give orders to, or handle the Supervisor in any way, for the purpose of demonstration or other training purposes, the Supervisor should always put the student back under his control.

18. 	The Supervisor will at all times observe the Auditor’s Code during sessions, and the Code of a Scientologist at all times.

19. 	The Supervisor will never give a student opinions about Scientology without labelling them thoroughly as such; otherwise, he is to direct only to tested and proven data concerning Scientology.

20. 	The Supervisor shall never use a student for his own personal gain.

21. 	The Supervisor will be a stable terminal, point the way to stable data, be certain, but not dogmatic or dictatorial toward his students.

22. 	The Supervisor will keep himself at all times informed of the most recent Scientology data and procedures, and communicate this information to his students.

SUPERVISOR’S STABLE DATA

In addition to the Supervisor’s Code there is a primary stable datum about all supervision:

Get the student to accomplish auditing the preclear and then get the student to accomplish it with better form, speed and accuracy.

A Supervisor must never lose sight of the PURPOSE of auditing. Auditing is for the preclear, is intended to improve the preclear’s case. Auditing is not just a matter of good form.

The reason some students do not accomplish auditing is that they become so oriented on form alone that they forget the purpose of the form.

Good auditing form and correct sessioning obtains many times the result of bad form and incorrect sessioning. But total form and no effort to do something for the preclear results in no auditing.

The result comes before the form in importance. Because students may use this idea to excuse lack of form, Q and A-ing, and to squirrel with their processes, the datum becomes unpopular with supervisors.

A student should first be held responsible for the state of the preclear during and after sessions and made to know that as an auditor he is there to get a fast, good result. The student should then be taught that he can get a better, faster result with better form. After that the student should be taught that Scientology results are only obtained by correct and exact duplication of Scientology processes, not by off-beat variations.

The student wants to know how to do this or that. Refer him to his materials on how to do the most fundamental actions, but MAKE HIM OR HER DO IT. And keep up a running refrain that you want results, results, results, on his preclear.

The student will be all thumbs and faint. The Supervisor may be horrified by the goofs. But don’t bother with the goofs. Just demand results on the preclear, results on the preclear, results on the preclear.

This action by the Supervisor will teach the student (a) that he or she is supposed to get results in auditing and (b) that results can be obtained and (c) that he or she sure needs better skill.

So the first address in training is to teach those above three things (a), (b) and (c).

You can’t teach a student who doesn’t realize that results in the preclear depend on the auditor and auditing and that results are EXPECTED from auditing; who believes results can’t be obtained from auditing or wants to prove auditing doesn’t work; and who doesn’t yet know that he or she doesn’t know. THESE are the barriers to training and a good auditor.

The gradient approach to the mind is vital. Clearing will not occur without it. But the gradient approach to auditing can be overdone to a point where the student completely loses sight of why he is auditing.

(1) 	First and foremost the auditor ACCOMPLISHES something for the preclear and without that there is neither sense nor purpose to auditing;
(2) 	Excellent form accomplishes more for the preclear faster; and
(3) 	Exact duplication of processes alone returns standard high level results on all preclears.

The student thrown in over his head learns:

(A) 	Results in the preclear depend on the auditor and auditing and that results are expected from auditing;
(B) 	That results CAN be obtained in auditing and the better the form and duplication, the better the results; and
(C) 	That the student has more to learn about auditing and that the student doesn’t yet know. 

Therefore the Supervisor must teach the student:

(a) 	That he or she is supposed to get results in auditing;
(b) 	That Scientology can obtain results; and
(c) 	That better form and duplication obtain better, faster results.

I dare say many students learn things just because they are told to and find no relationship between form, duplication and the preclear. Let them fall on their heads and yet obtain results and this attitude will change - and you’ll save us a lot of off-beat nonsense and case failures in organizations and the field.

THE CREDO OF A GOOD AND SKILLED MANAGER

To be effective and successful a manager must:

1. 	Understand as fully as possible the goals and aims of the group he manages. He must be able to see and embrace the ideal attainment of the goal as envisioned by a goal maker. He must be able to tolerate and better the practical attainments and advances of which his group and its members may be capable. He must strive to narrow, always, the ever existing gulf between the ideal and the practical.  

2. 	He must realize that a primary mission is the full and honest interpretation by himself of the ideal and ethic and their goals and aims to his subordinates and the group itself. He must lead creatively and persuasively toward these goals his subordinates, the group itself and the individuals of the group.

3. 	He must embrace the organization and act solely for the entire organization and never form or favor cliques. His judgement of individuals of the group should be solely in the light of their worth to the entire group.

4. 	He must never falter in sacrificing individuals to the good of the group both in planning and execution and in his justice.

5. 	He must protect all established communication lines and complement them where necessary.

6. 	He must protect all affinity in his charge and have himself an affinity for the group itself.

7. 	He must attain always to the highest creative reality.

8. 	His planning must accomplish, in the light of goals and aims, the activity of the entire group. He must never let organizations grow and sprawl but, learning by pilots, must keep organizational planning fresh and flexible.

9. 	He must recognize in himself the rationale of the group and receive and evaluate the data out of which he makes his solutions with the highest attention to the truth of that data.

10. 	He must constitute himself on the orders of service to the group.

11. 	He must permit himself to be served well as to his individual requirements, practicing an economy of his own efforts and enjoying certain comforts to the end of keeping high his rationale.

12. 	He should require of his subordinates that they relay into their own spheres of management the whole and entire of his true feelings and the reasons for his decisions as clearly as they can be relayed and expanded and interpreted only for the greater understanding of the individuals governed by those subordinates.

13. 	He must never permit himself to pervert or mask any portion of the ideal and ethic on which the group operates nor must he permit the ideal and ethic to grow old and outmoded and unworkable. He must never permit his planning to be perverted or censored by subordinates. He must never permit the ideal and ethic of the group’s individual members to deteriorate, using always reason to interrupt such a deterioration.

14. 	He must have faith in the goals, faith in himself and faith in the group.
15. 	He must lead by demonstrating always creative and constructive sub-goals. He must not drive by threat and fear.

16. 	He must realize that every individual in the group is engaged in some degree in the managing of other men, life and MEST and that a liberty of management within this code should be allowed to every such sub-manager.

Thus conducting himself a manager can win empire for his group, whatever that empire may be.

How to Live Though an Executive

PRIMARY AXIOMS FROM 
THE ORIGINAL THESIS

AXIOM 1  	SURVIVE!

AXIOM 2  	THE PURPOSE OF THE MIND IS TO SOLVE PROBLEMS RELATING                                 TO SURVIVAL.

AXIOM 3	THE MIND DIRECTS THE ORGANISM, THE SPECIES, ITS SYMBIOTES OR LIFE IN THE EFFORT OF SURVIVAL.

AXIOM 4  	THE MIND, AS THE CENTRAL DIRECTION SYSTEM OF THE                          BODY, POSES, PERCEIVES AND RESOLVES PROBLEMS OF SURVIVAL AND DIRECTS OR FAILS TO DIRECT THEIR EXECUTION.

AXIOM 5  	THE PERSISTENCY OF THE INDIVIDUAL IN LIFE IS DIRECTLY                              GOVERNED BY THE STRENGTH OF HIS BASIC DYNAMIC.

AXIOM 6  	INTELLIGENCE IS THE ABILITY OF AN INDIVIDUAL GROUP OR                       RACE TO RESOLVE PROBLEMS RELATING TO SURVIVAL.  

Dianetics: The Original Thesis
1948

THE FUNDAMENTAL AXIOMS OF DIANETICS

The dynamic principle of existence - SURVIVE!

SURVIVAL, considered as the single and sole Purpose, subdivides into four DYNAMICS.

DYNAMIC ONE is the urge of the individual toward survival for the individual and his symbiotes. By symbiote is meant all entities and energies which aid survival.

DYNAMIC TWO is the urge of the individual toward survival through procreation; it includes both the sex act and the raising of progeny, the care of children and their symbiotes.

DYNAMIC THREE is the urge of the individual toward survival for the group or the group for the group and includes the symbiotes of that group.

DYNAMIC FOUR is the urge of the individual toward survival for Mankind or the urge toward survival of Mankind for Mankind as well as the group for Mankind, etc., and includes the symbiotes of Mankind.

THE  ABSOLUTE  GOAL of survival is immortality or infinite survival. This is sought by the individual in terms of himself as an organism, as a spirit or as a name or as his children, as a group of which he is a member or as Mankind and the progeny and symbiotes of others as well as his own.

The reward of survival activity is PLEASURE.

The ultimate penalty of destructive activity is death or complete non-survival, and is PAIN.

Successes raise the survival potential toward infinite survival.

Failures lower the survival potential toward death.

The human mind is engaged upon perceiving and retaining data, composing or computing conclusions and posing and resolving problems related to organisms along all four dynamics; and the purpose of perception, retention, concluding and resolving problems is to direct its own organism and symbiotes and other organisms and symbiotes along the four dynamics toward survival.

INTELLIGENCE is the ability to perceive, pose and resolve problems.

THE DYNAMIC is the tenacity to life and vigor and persistence in surivival. 

BOTH THE DYNAMIC AND INTELLIGENCE are necessary to persist and accomplish and neither is a constant quantity from individual to individual, group to group.

THE DYNAMICS are inhibited by engrams, which lie across them and disperse life force.

INTELLIGENCE is inhibited by engrams, which feed false or improperly graded data into the analyzer.

HAPPINESS is the overcoming of not unknown obstacles toward a known goal and, transiently, the contemplation of or indulgence in pleasure.

THE ANALYTICAL MIND is that portion of the mind which perceives and retains experience data to compose and resolve problems and direct the organism along the four dynamics. IT THINKS IN DIFFERENCES AND SIMILARITES.
THE REACTIVE MIND is that portion of the mind which files and retains physical pain and painful emotion and seeks to direct the organism solely on a stimulus-response basis. IT THINKS ONLY IN IDENTITIES.

THE SOMATIC MIND is that mind which, directed by the analytical or reactive mind, places solutions into effect on the physical level.

A TRAINING PATTERN is that stimulus-response mechanism resolved by the analytical mind to care for routine activity or emergency activity. It is held in the somatic mind and can be changed at will by the analytical mind.

HABIT is that stimulus-response reaction dictated by the reactive mind from the content of engrams and put into effect by the somatic mind. It can be changed only by those things which change engrams.

ABERRATIONS, under which is included all deranged or irrational behavior, are caused by engrams. They are stimulus-response pro- and contra-survival.

PSYCHO-SOMATIC ILLS are caused by engrams.

THE ENGRAM is the single source of aberrations and psycho-somatic ills.

Moments of “unconsciousness” when the analytical mind is attenuated in greater or lesser degree are the only moments when engrams can be received.

THE ENGRAM is a moment of “unconsciousness” containing physical pain or painful emotion and all perceptions and is not available to the analytical mind as experience.

EMOTION is three things: engramic response to situations, endocrine metering of the body to meet situations on an analytical  level and the inhibition or the furtherance of life force.

THE POTENTIAL VALUE of an individual or a group may be expressed by the equation 

PV = IDx

where I is Intelligence and D is Dynamic.

THE WORTH of an individual is computed in terms of the alignment, on any dynamic, of his potential value with optimum survival along that dynamic. A high PV may, by reversed vector, result in a negative worth as in some severly aberrated persons. A high PV on any dynamic ASSURES a high worth only in the unaberrated person.

Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health

THE LOGICS

LOGIC 1. 	KNOWLEDGE IS A WHOLE GROUP OR SUB-DIVISION OF A GROUP             OF DATA OR SPECULATIONS OR CONCLUSIONS ON DATA OR              METHODS OF GAINING DATA.

LOGIC 2. 	A BODY OF KNOWLEDGE IS A BODY OF DATA, ALIGNED OR                  UNALIGNED, OR METHODS OF GAINING DATA. 

LOGIC 3. 	ANY KNOWLEDGE WHICH CAN BE SENSED, MEASURED OR                  EXPERIENCED BY ANY ENTITY IS CAPABLE OF INFLUENCING                   THAT ENTITY.

	COROLLARY - THAT KNOWLEDGE WHICH CANNOT BE SENSED, MEASURED OR EXPERIENCED BY ANY ENTITY OR TYPE OF ENTITY CANNOT INFLUENCE THAT ENTITY OR TYPE OF ENTITY.

LOGIC 4. 	A DATUM IS A FACSIMILE OF STATES OF BEING, STATES OF NOT             BEING, ACTIONS OR INACTIONS, CONCLUSIONS, OR                                  SUPPOSITIONS IN THE PHYSICAL OR ANY OTHER UNIVERSE.

LOGIC 5. 	A DEFINITION OF TERMS IS NECESSARY TO THE ALIGNMENT,                  STATEMENT AND RESOLUTION OF SUPPOSITIONS,                                  OBSERVATIONS, PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS AND THEIR COMMUNICATION.

	DEFINITION - DESCRIPTIVE DEFINITION: ONE WHICH CLASSIFIES BY CHARACTERISTICS, BY DESCRIBING EXISTING STATES OF BEING.

	DEFINITION - DIFFERENTIATIVE DEFINITION: ONE WHICH COMPARES UNLIKENESS TO EXISTING STATES OF BEING OR NOT BEING.

	DEFINITION - ASSOCIATIVE DEFINITION: ONE WHICH DECLARES LIKENESS TO EXISTING STATES OF BEING OR NOT BEING.

	DEFINITION - ACTION DEFINITION: ONE WHICH DELINEATES CAUSE AND POTENTIAL CHANGE OF STATE OF BEING BY CAUSE OF EXISTENCE, INEXISTENCE, ACTION, INACTION, PURPOSE OR LACK OF PURPOSE.

LOGIC 6. 	ABSOLUTES ARE UNOBTAINABLE.

LOGIC 7. 	GRADIENT SCALES ARE NECESSARY TO THE EVALUATION OF                           PROBLEMS AND THEIR DATA.

	This is the tool of infinity-valued logic: Absolutes are unobtainable. Terms such as good and bad, alive and dead, right and wrong are used only in conjunction with gradient scales. On the scale of right and wrong, everything above zero or center would be more and more right, approaching an infinite rightness, and everything below center would be more and more wrong, approaching infinite wrongness. All things assisting the survival of the survivor are considered to be right for the survivor. All things inhibiting survival from the viewpoint of the survivor can be considered wrong for the survivor. The more a thing assists survival, the more it can be considered right for the survivor; the more a thing or action inhibits survival, the more it is wrong from the viewpoint of the intended survivor.

	COROLLARY - ANY DATUM HAS ONLY RELATIVE TRUTH.

	COROLLARY - TRUTH IS RELATIVE TO ENVIRONMENTS, EXPERIENCE AND TRUTH.

LOGIC 8. 	A DATUM CAN BE EVALUATED ONLY BY A DATUM OF                              COMPARABLE MAGNITUDE.

LOGIC 9.  	A DATUM IS AS VALUABLE AS IT HAS BEEN EVALUATED. 

LOGIC 10.  	THE VALUE OF A DATUM IS ESTABLISHED BY THE AMOUNT OF                  ALIGNMENT (RELATIONSHIP) IT IMPARTS TO OTHER DATA.

LOGIC 11.	THE VALUE OF A DATUM OR FIELD OF DATA CAN BE ESTABLISHED BY ITS DEGREE OF ASSISTANCE IN SURVIVAL OR ITS INHIBITION TO SURVIVAL.

LOGIC 12.  	THE VALUE OF A DATUM OR A FIELD OF DATA IS MODIFIED BY                THE VIEWPOINT OF THE OBSERVER.

LOGIC 13.  PROBLEMS ARE RESOLVED BY COMPARTMENTING THEM INTO                  AREAS OF SIMILAR MAGNITUDE AND DATA, COMPARING THEM                          TO DATA ALREADY KNOWN OR PARTIALLY KNOWN, AND                       RESOLVING EACH AREA. DATA WHICH CANNOT BE KNOWN                        IMMEDIATELY MAY BE RESOLVED BY ADDRESSING WHAT IS           KNOWN AND USING ITS SOLUTION TO RESOLVE THE                               REMAINDER.

LOGIC 14. 	FACTORS INTRODUCED INTO A PROBLEM OR SOLUTION WHICH                   DO NOT DERIVE FROM NATURAL LAW BUT ONLY                             AUTHORITARIAN COMMAND ABERRATE THAT PROBLEM OR           SOLUTION.

LOGIC 15.	THE INTRODUCTION OF AN ARBITRARY INTO A PROBLEM OR              SOLUTION INVITES THE FURTHER INTRODUCTION OF                     ARBITRARIES INTO PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS. 

LOGIC 16.	AN ABSTRACT POSTULATE MUST BE COMPARED TO THE             UNIVERSE TO WHICH IT APPLIES AND BROUGHT INTO THE                CATEGORY OF THINGS WHICH CAN BE SENSED, MEASURED OR                    EXPERIENCED IN THAT UNIVERSE BEFORE SUCH POSTULATE                CAN BE CONSIDERED WORKABLE.

LOGIC 17.	THOSE FIELDS WHICH MOST DEPEND UPON AUTHORITATIVE                           OPINION FOR THEIR DATA LEAST CONTAIN KNOWN NATURAL              LAW.

LOGIC 18.  	A POSTULATE IS AS VALUABLE AS IT IS WORKABLE.

LOGIC 19. 	THE WORKABILITY OF A POSTULATE IS ESTABLISHED BY THE                                 DEGREE TO WHICH IT EXPLAINS EXISTING PHENOMENA               ALREADY KNOWN, BY THE DEGREE THAT IT PREDICTS NEW               PHENOMENA WHICH WHEN LOOKED FOR WILL BE FOUND TO               EXIST, AND BY THE DEGREE THAT IT DOES NOT REQUIRE         THAT PHENOMENA WHICH DO NOT EXIST IN FACT BE CALLED                  INTO EXISTENCE FOR ITS EXPLANATION.

LOGIC 20.	A SCIENCE MAY BE CONSIDERED TO BE A LARGE BODY OF                       ALIGNED DATA WHICH HAS SIMILARITY IN APPLICATION AND               WHICH HAS BEEN DEDUCED OR INDUCED FROM BASIC                              POSTULATES.

LOGIC 21.	MATHEMATICS ARE METHODS OF POSTULATING OR                                    RESOLVING REAL OR ABSTRACT DATA IN ANY UNIVERSE AND                         INTEGRATING BY SYMBOLIZATION OF DATA, POSTULATES AND               RESOLUTIONS.

LOGIC 22.	THE HUMAN MIND IS AN OBSERVER, POSTULATOR, CREATOR                     AND STORAGE PLACE OF KNOWLEDGE.

LOGIC 23.	THE HUMAN MIND IS A SERVO MECHANISM TO ANY                                MATHEMATICS EVOLVED OR EMPLOYED BY THE HUMAN MIND.

	POSTULATE - THE HUMAN MIND AND INVENTIONS OF THE HUMAN MIND ARE CAPABLE OF RESOLVING ANY AND ALL PROBLEMS WHICH CAN BE SENSED, MEASURED OR EXPERIENCED DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY.

	COROLLARY - THE HUMAN MIND IS CAPABLE OF RESOLVING THE PROBLEM OF THE HUMAN MIND.

	The borderline of solution of this science lies between WHY life is surviving and HOW life is surviving. It is possible to resolve HOW life is surviving without resolving WHY life is surviving.

LOGIC 24.	THE RESOLUTION OF THE PHILOSOPHICAL, SCIENTIFIC AND                 HUMAN STUDIES (such as economics, politics, sociology,                         medicine, criminology, etc.) DEPENDS PRIMARILY UPON THE                 RESOLUTION OF THE PROBLEMS OF THE HUMAN MIND.

*The human mind by definition includes the awareness unit of the living organism, the observer, the computer of data, the spirit, the memory storage, the life force and the individual motivator of the living organisms. It is used as distinct from the brain, which can be considered to be motivated by the mind.

NOTE: The primary step in resolving the broad activities of man could be considered to be the resolving of the activities of the mind itself. Hence, the logics carry to this point and then proceed as axioms concerning the human mind, such axioms being substantiated as relative truths by much newly discovered phenomena. The ensuing axioms, from Logic 24, apply no less to the various ‘ologies’ than they do to de-aberrating or improving the operation of the mind. It should not be thought that the following axioms are devoted to the construction of anything as limited as a therapy, which is only incidental to the resolution of human aberration and such things as psychomatic illnesses. These axioms are capable of such solutions, as has been demonstrated, but such a narrow application would indicate a very narrow scope of view. 

THE AXIOMS OF DIANETICS

AXIOM 1 	THE SOURCE OF LIFE IS A STATIC OF PECULIAR AND PARTICULAR PROPERTIES

AXIOM 2  	AT LEAST A PORTION OF THE STATIC CALLED LIFE IS IMPINGED UPON THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE

AXIOM 3 	THAT PORTION OF THE STATIC OF LIFE WHICH IS IMPINGED UPON THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE HAS FOR ITS DYNAMIC GOAL, SURVIVAL AND ONLY SURVIVAL

AXIOM 4  	THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE IS REDUCIBLE TO MOTION OF ENERGY OPERATING IN SPACE THROUGH TIME

AXIOM 5  	THAT PORTION OF THE STATIC OF LIFE CONCERNED WITH THE LIFE ORGANISMS OF THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE IS CONCERNED WHOLLY WITH MOTION

AXIOM 6  	THE LIFE STATIC HAS AS ONE OF ITS PROPERTIES THE ABILITY TO MOBILIZE AND ANIMATE MATTER INTO LIVING ORGANISMS

AXIOM 7  	THE LIFE STATIC IS ENGAGED IN A CONQUEST OF THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE

AXIOM 8	THE LIFE STATIC CONQUERS THE MATERIAL UNIVERSE BY LEARNING AND APPLYING THE PHYSICAL LAWS OF THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE

	SYMBOL: The Symbol for the Life Static in use hereafter is the Greek letter  THETA

AXIOM 9 	A FUNDAMENTAL OPERATION OF THETA IN SURVIVING IS BRINGING ORDER INTO THE CHAOS OF THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE

AXIOM 10	THETA BRINGS ORDER INTO CHAOS BY CONQUERING WHATEVER IN MEST MAY BE PRO-SURVIVAL AND DESTROYING  WHATEVER IN MEST MAY BE CONTRA-SURVIVAL, AT LEAST THROUGH THE MEDIUM OF LIFE ORGANISMS

	SYMBOL: The symbol for the PHYSICAL UNIVERSE in use hereafter is MEST, from the first letters of the words Matter, Energy, Space, and Time, or the Greek letter PHI

AXIOM 11	A LIFE ORGANISM IS COMPOSED OF MATTER AND ENERGY IN  SPACE AND TIME, ANIMATED BY THETA

	SYMBOL: Living organism or organisms will hereafter be represented by the Greek letter LAMBDA

AXIOM 12	THE MEST PART OF THE ORGANISM FOLLOWS THE LAWS OF THE PHYSICAL SCIENCES ALL LAMBDA IS CONCERNED WITH MOTION

AXIOM 13	THETA OPERATING THROUGH LAMBDA CONVERTS THE FORCES OF THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE INTO FORCES TO CONQUER THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE
AXIOM 14	THETA WORKING UPON PHYSICAL UNIVERSE MOTION MUST MAINTAIN A HARMONIOUS RATE OF MOTION

	The limits of Lambda are narrow, both as to thermal and mechanical motion

AXIOM 15	LAMBDA IS THE INTERMEDIATE STEP IN THE CONQUEST OF THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE

AXIOM 16	THE BASIC FOOD OF ANY ORGANISM CONSISTS OF LIGHT AND CHEMICALS

 	Organisms can exist only as higher levels of complexities because lower levels of converters exist

	Theta evolves organisms from lower to higher forms and supports them by the existence of lower converter forms

AXIOM 17  	THETA, VIA LAMBDA, EFFECTS AN EVOLUTION OF MEST

	In this we have the waste products of organisms on the one hand as those very complex chemicals which bacteria make, and, on the other hand, we have the physical face of the earth being changed by animals and men, such changes as grass holding mountains from eroding or roots causing boulders to break, buildings being built, and rivers being dammed There is obviously an evolution in MEST in progress under the incursion of Theta

AXIOM 18	LAMBDA, EVEN WITHIN A SPECIES, VARIES IN ITS ENDOWMENT OF THETA

AXIOM 19	THE EFFORT OF LAMBDA IS TOWARD SURVIVAL

	The goal of Lambda is survival

	The penalty of failure to advance toward that goal is to succumb

	DEFINITION: PERSISTENCE IS THE ABILITY TO EXERT CONTINUANCE OF EFFORT TOWARD SURVIVAL GOALS

AXIOM 20	LAMBDA CREATES, CONSERVES, MAINTAINS, REQUIRES, DESTROYS, CHANGES, OCCUPIES, GROUPS AND DISPERSESMEST LAMBDA SURVIVES BY ANIMATING AND MOBILIZING OR DESTROYING MATTER AND ENERGY IN SPACE AND TIME

AXIOM 21	LAMBDA IS DEPENDENT UPON OPTIMUM MOTION MOTION WHICH IS TOO SWIFT AND MOTION WHICH IS TOO SLOW ARE EQUALLY CONTRA-SURVIVAL

AXIOM 22	THETA AND THOUGHT ARE SIMILAR ORDERS OF STATIC

AXIOM 23  	ALL THOUGHT IS CONCERNED WITH MOTION

AXIOM 24	THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN OPTIMUM MOTION IS A BASIC GOAL OF REASON

	DEFINITION: LAMBDA IS A CHEMICAL HEAT ENGINE EXISTING IN SPACE AND TIME MOTIVATED BY THE LIFE STATIC AND DIRECTED BY THOUGHT

AXIOM 25	THE BASIC PURPOSE OF REASON IS THE CALCULATION OR ESTIMATION OF EFFORT

AXIOM 26	THOUGHT IS ACCOMPLISHED BY THETA FACSIMILES OF PHYSICAL UNIVERSE, ENTITIES OR ACTIONS

AXIOM 27	THETA IS SATISFIED ONLY WITH HARMONIOUS ACTION OR OPTIMUM MOTION AND REJECTS OR DESTROYS ACTION OR MOTION ABOVE OR BELOW ITS TOLERANCE BAND

AXIOM 28	THE MIND IS CONCERNED WHOLLY WITH THE ESTIMATION OFEFFORT

	DEFINITION: MIND IS THE THETA COMMAND POST OF ANY ORGANISM OR ORGANISMS

AXIOM 29	THE BASIC ERRORS OF REASON ARE FAILURES TO DIFFERENTIATE AMONGST MATTER, ENERGY, SPACE AND TIME

AXIOM 30  	RIGHTNESS IS PROPER CALCULATION OF EFFORT

AXIOM 31  	WRONGNESS IS ALWAYS MISCALCULATION OF EFFORT

AXIOM 32  	THETA CAN EXERT ITSELF DIRECTLY OR EXTENSIONALLY

	Theta can direct physical application of the organism to the environment or through the mind, can first calculate the action or extend, as in language, ideas

AXIOM 33	CONCLUSIONS ARE DIRECTED TOWARD THE INHIBITION,  MAINTENANCE OR ACCELERATIONS OF EFFORTS

AXIOM 34	THE COMMON DENOMINATOR OF ALL LIFE ORGANISMS IS MOTION

AXIOM 35	EFFORT OF AN ORGANISM TO SURVIVE OR SUCCUMB IS PHYSICAL MOTION OF A LIFE ORGANISM AT A GIVEN MOMENT IN TIME THROUGH SPACE

	DEFINITION: MOTION IS ANY CHANGE IN ORIENTATION IN SPACE

	DEFINITION: FORCE IS RANDOM EFFORT

	DEFINITION: EFFORT IS DIRECTED FORCE

AXIOM 36	AN ORGANISM’S EFFORT CAN BE TO REMAIN AT REST OR PERSIST IN A GIVEN MOTION

	Static state has position in time, but an organism which is  remaining positionally in a static if alive, is still continuing a highly complex pattern of motion, such as the heart beat, digestion, etc

	The efforts of organisms to survive or succumb are assisted, compelled or opposed by the efforts of other organisms, matter, energy, space and time

	DEFINITION: ATTENTION IS A MOTION WHICH MUST REMAIN AT AN OPTIMUM EFFORT

	Attention is aberrated by becoming unfixed and sweeping at random or becoming too fixed without sweeping
	Unknown threats to survival when sensed cause attention to sweep without fixing

	Known threats to survival when sensed cause attention to fix 

AXIOM 37	THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF LAMBDA IS INFINITE SURVIVAL

AXIOM 38	DEATH IS ABANDONMENT BY THETA OF A LIFE ORGANISM ORRACE OR SPECIES WHERE THESE CAN NO LONGER SERVE THETA IN ITS GOALS OF INFINITE SURVIVAL

AXIOM 39	THE REWARD OF AN ORGANISM ENGAGING UPON SURVIVAL ACTIVITY IS PLEASURE 

AXIOM 40	THE PENALTY OF AN ORGANISM FAILING TO ENGAGE UPONSURVIVAL ACTIVITY, OR ENGAGING IN NON-SURVIVAL ACTIVITY, IS PAIN

AXIOM 41 	THE CELL AND VIRUS ARE THE PRIMARY BUILDING BLOCKS OF  LIFE ORGANISMS

AXIOM 42	THE VIRUS AND CELL ARE MATTER AND ENERGY ANIMATEDAND MOTIVATED IN SPACE AND TIME BY THETA

AXIOM 43	THETA MOBILIZES THE VIRUS AND CELL IN COLONIAL  AGGREGATIONS TO INCREASE POTENTIAL MOTION AND ACCOMPLISH EFFORT

AXIOM 44	THE GOAL OF VIRUSES AND CELLS IS SURVIVAL IN SPACE THROUGH TIME  

AXIOM 45	THE TOTAL MISSION OF HIGHER ORGANISMS, VIRUSES AND CELLS IS THE SAME AS THAT OF THE VIRUS AND CELL

AXIOM 46	COLONIAL AGGREGATIONS OF VIRUSES AND CELLS CAN BE IMBUED WITH MORE THETA THAN THEY INHERENTLY CONTAINED

AXIOM 47	EFFORT CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED BY LAMBDA ONLY THROUGH THE CO-ORDINATION OF ITS PARTS TOWARD GOALS

AXIOM 48	AN ORGANISM IS EQUIPPED TO BE GOVERNED AND CONTROLLED BY A MIND

AXIOM 49	THE PURPOSE OF THE MIND IS TO POSE AND RESOLVEPROBLEMS RELATING TO SURVIVAL AND TO DIRECT THE EFFORT OF THE ORGANISM ACCORDING TO THESE SOLUTIONS

AXIOM 50	ALL PROBLEMS ARE POSED AND RESOLVED THROUGH  ESTIMATIONS OF EFFORT

AXIOM 51	THE MIND CAN CONFUSE POSITION IN SPACE WITH POSITION  IN TIME (COUNTER-EFFORTS PRODUCING ACTION PHRASES)
AXIOM 52	AN ORGANISM PROCEEDING TOWARD SURVIVAL IS DIRECTEDBY THE MIND OF THAT ORGANISM IN THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF SURVIVAL EFFORT

AXIOM 53	AN ORGANISM PROCEEDING TOWARD SUCCUMB IS DIRECTED BY THE MIND OF THAT ORGANISM IN THE ACCOMPLISHMENT  OF DEATH

AXIOM 54	SURVIVAL OF AN ORGANISM IS ACCOMPLISHED BY THE  OVERCOMING OF EFFORTS OPPOSING ITS SURVIVAL

	(Note: Corollary for other dynamics)

	DEFINITION: DYNAMIC IS THE ABILITY TO TRANSLATE SOLUTIONS INTO ACTION

AXIOM 55	SURVIVAL EFFORT FOR AN ORGANISM INCLUDES THE DYNAMIC THRUST BY THAT ORGANISM FOR THE SURVIVAL OF ITSELF,ITS PROCREATION, ITS GROUP, ITS SUB-SPECIES, ITS SPECIES ALL LIFE ORGANISMS, MATERIAL UNIVERSE, THE LIFE STATIC  AND, POSSIBLY, A SUPREME BEING

	(Note: List of dynamics)

AXIOM 56	THE CYCLE OF AN ORGANISM, A GROUP OF ORGANISMS OR A  SPECIES IS INCEPTION, GROWTH, RE-CREATION, DECAY ANDDEATH

AXIOM 57	THE EFFORT OF AN ORGANISM IS DIRECTED TOWARD THE CONTROL OF THE ENVIRONMENT FOR ALL THE DYNAMICS

AXIOM 58	CONTROL OF AN ENVIRONMENT IS ACCOMPLISHED BY THE SUPPORT OF PRO-SURVIVAL FACTORS ALONG ANY DYNAMIC

AXIOM 59	ANY TYPE OF HIGHER ORGANISM IS ACCOMPLISHED BY THE EVOLUTION OF VIRUSES AND CELLS INTO FORMS CAPABLE OF BETTER EFFORTS TO CONTROL OR LIVE IN AN ENVIRONMENT

AXIOM 60	THE USEFULNESS OF AN ORGANISM IS DETERMINED BY ITS ABILITY TO CONTROL THE ENVIRONMENT OR TO SUPPORT  ORGANISMS WHICH CONTROL THE ENVIRONMENT

AXIOM 61	AN ORGANISM IS REJECTED BY THETA TO THE DEGREE THAT IT FAILS IN ITS GOALS

AXIOM 62	HIGHER ORGANISMS CAN EXIST ONLY IN THE DEGREE THAT THEY ARE SUPPORTED BY THE LOWER ORGANISMS

AXIOM 63	THE USEFULLNESS OF AN ORGANISM IS DETERMINED BY THE ALIGNMENT OF ITS EFFORTS TOWARD SURVIVAL

AXIOM 64	THE MIND PERCEIVES AND STORES ALL DATA OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND ALIGNS OR FAILS TO ALIGN THESE ACCORDING TO THE TIME THEY WERE PERCEIVED

	DEFINITION: A CONCLUSION IS THE THETA FACSIMILES OF A GROUP OF COMBINED DATA

	DEFINITION: A DATUM IS A THETA FACSIMILE OF PHYSICAL ACTION

AXIOM 65	THE PROCESS OF THOUGHT IS THE PERCEPTION OF THE PRESENT AND THE COMPARISON OF IT TO THE PERCEPTIONS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE PAST IN ORDER TO DIRECT ACTION  IN THE IMMEDIATE OR DISTANT FUTURE

	COROLLARY: THE ATTEMPT OF THOUGHT IS TO PERCEIVE REALITIES OF THE PAST AND PRESENT IN ORDER TO PREDICT OR  POSTULATE REALITIES OF THE FUTURE

AXIOM 66	THE PROCESS BY WHICH LIFE EFFECTS ITS CONQUEST OF THE  MATERIAL UNIVERSE CONSISTS IN THE CONVERSION OF THE POTENTIAL EFFORT OF MATTER AND ENERGY IN SPACE AND THROUGH TIME TO EFFECT WITH IT THE CONVERSION OF FURTHER MATTER AND ENERGY IN SPACE AND THROUGH TIME

AXIOM 67	THETA CONTAINS ITS OWN THETA UNIVERSE EFFORT WHICH TRANSLATES INTO MEST EFFORT

AXIOM 68  	THE SINGLE ARBITRARY IN ANY ORGANISM IS TIME

AXIOM 69	PHYSICAL UNIVERSE PERCEPTIONS AND EFFORTS ARE RECEIVED BY AN ORGANISM AS FORCE WAVES, CONVERT BY FACSIMILE INTO THETA AND ARE THUS STORED

	DEFINITION: RANDOMITY IS THE MIS-ALIGNMENT THROUGH THE INTERNAL OR EXTERNAL EFFORTS BY OTHER FORMS OF LIFE OR THE MATERIAL UNIVERSE OF THE EFFORTS OF AN ORGANISM, AND IS IMPOSED ON THE PHYSICAL ORGANISM  BY COUNTER-EFFORTS IN THE ENVIRONMENT

AXIOM 70	ANY CYCLE OF ANY LIFE ORGANISM IS FROM STATIC TO MOTION TO STATIC

AXIOM 71	THE CYCLE OF RANDOMITY IS FROM STATIC, THROUGH OPTIMUM, THROUGH RANDOMITY SUFFICIENTLY REPETITIOUS OR SIMILAR TO CONSTITUTE ANOTHER STATIC

AXIOM 72	THERE ARE TWO SUB-DIVISIONS TO RANDOMITY: DATA  RANDOMITY AND FORCE RANDOMITY

AXIOM 73	THE THREE DEGREES OF RANDOMITY CONSIST OF MINUS RANDOMITY, OPTIMUM RANDOMITY AND PLUS RANDOMITY

	DEFINITION: RANDOMITY IS A COMPONENT FACTOR AND NECESSARY PART OF MOTION, IF MOTION IS TO CONTINUE

AXIOM 74	OPTIMUM RANDOMITY IS NECESSARY TO LEARNING

AXIOM 75	THE IMPORTANT FACTORS IN ANY AREA OF RANDOMITY ARE EFFORT AND COUNTER-EFFORT

	(Note: As distinguished from near-perceptions of effort)

AXIOM 76	RANDOMITY AMONGST ORGANISMS IS VITAL TO CONTINUOUS SURVIVAL OF ALL ORGANISMS
AXIOM 77	THETA AFFECTS THE ORGANISM, OTHER ORGANISMS AND THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE BY TRANSLATING THETA FACSIMILES INTO PHYSICAL EFFORTS OR RANDOMITY OF EFFORTS
	DEFINITION: THE DEGREE OF RANDOMITY IS MEASURED BY THE RANDOMNESS OF EFFORT VECTORS WITHIN THE  ORGANISM, AMONGST ORGANISMS, AMONGST RACES OR SPECIES OF ORGANISMS OR BETWEEN ORGANISMS AND THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE

AXIOM 78	RANDOMITY BECOMES INTENSE IN INDIRECT RATIO TO THE TIME IN WHICH IT TAKES PLACE, MODIFIED BY THE TOTAL EFFORT IN THE AREA

AXIOM 79	INITIAL RANDOMITY CAN BE REINFORCED BY RANDOMITIES OF GREATER OR LESSER MAGNITUDE

AXIOM 80	AREAS OF RANDOMITY EXIST IN CHAINS OF SIMILARITY  PLOTTED AGAINST TIME THIS CAN BE TRUE OF WORDS AND ACTIONS CONTAINED IN RANDOMITIES EACH MAY HAVE ITS  OWN CHAIN PLOTTED AGAINST TIME

AXIOM 81	SANITY CONSISTS OF OPTIMUM RANDOMITY

AXIOM 82 	ABERRATION EXISTS TO THE DEGREE THAT PLUS OR MINUS RANDOMITY EXISTS IN THE ENVIRONMENT OR PAST DATA OF AN ORGANISM, GROUP OR SPECIES, MODIFIED BY THE ENDOWED SELF- DETERMINISM OF THAT ORGANISM, GROUP OR SPECIES

AXIOM 83	THE SELF-DETERMINISM OF AN ORGANISM IS DETERMINED BY ITS THETA ENDOWMENT, MODIFIED BY MINUS OR PLUS RANDOMITY IN ITS ENVIRONMENT OR ITS EXISTENCE

AXIOM 84	THE SELF-DETERMINISM OF AN ORGANISM IS INCREASED BY OPTIMUM RANDOMITY OF COUNTER-EFFORTS

AXIOM 85	THE SELF-DETERMINISM OF AN ORGANISM IS REDUCED BY PLUS OR MINUS RANDOMITY OF COUNTER-EFFORTS IN THE ENVIRONMENT

AXIOM 86	RANDOMITY CONTAINS BOTH THE RANDOMNESS OF EFFORTS AND THE VOLUME OF EFFORTS

	(Note: An area of randomity can have a gret deal of confusion but, without volume of energy, the confusion itself is negligible)

AXIOM 87	THAT COUNTER-EFFORT IS MOST ACCEPTABLE TO AN ORGANISM WHICH MOST CLOSELY APPEARS TO ASSIST ITS ACCOMPLISHMENT OF ITS GOAL

AXIOM 88	AN AREA OF SEVERE PLUS OR MINUS RANDOMITY CAN  OCCLUDE DATA ON ANY OF THE SUBJECTS OF THAT PLUS OR MINUS RANDOMITY WHICH TOOK PLACE IN A PRIOR TIME

	(Note: Shut-off mechanisms of earlier lives, perceptics, specific incidents, etc)

AXIOM 89	RESTIMULATION OF PLUS, MINUS OR OPTIMUM RANDOMITYCAN PRODUCE INCREASED PLUS, MINUS OR OPTIMUM RANDOMITY RESPECTIVELY IN THE ORGANISM

AXIOM 90	AN AREA OF RANDOMITY CAN ASSUME SUFFICIENT MAGNITUDE SO AS TO APPEAR TO THE ORGANISM AS PAIN, ACCORDING TO  ITS GOALS

AXIOM 91	PAST RANDOMITY CAN IMPOSE ITSELF UPON THE PRESENT ORGANISM AS THETA FACSIMILES

AXIOM 92	THE ENGRAM IS A SEVERE AREA OF PLUS OR MINUS RANDOMITY OF SUFFICIENT VOLUME TO CAUSE  UNCONSCIOUSNESS

AXIOM 93	UNCONSCIOUSNESS IS AN EXCESS OF RANDOMITY IMPOSED BY A COUNTER-EFFORT OF SUFFICIENT FORCE TO CLOUD THE  AWARENESS AND DIRECT FUNCTION OF THE ORGANISM THROUGH THE MIND’S CONTROL CENTER

AXIOM 94	ANY COUNTER-EFFORT WHICH MIS-ALIGNS THE ORGANISM’S COMMAND OF ITSELF OR ITS ENVIRONMENT ESTABLISHES PLUS OR MINUS RANDOMITY OR, IF OF SUFFICIENT  MAGNITUDE, IS AN ENGRAM

AXIOM 95	PAST ENGRAMS ARE RESTIMULATED BY THE CONTROL CENTER’S PERCEPTION OF CIRCUMSTANCES SIMILAR TO THAT ENGRAM IN THE PRESENT ENVIRONMENT

AXIOM 96	AN ENGRAM IS A THETA FACSIMILE OF ATOMS AND MOLECULES IN MISALIGNMENT

AXIOM 97	ENGRAMS FIX EMOTIONAL RESPONSE AS THAT EMOTIONAL  RESPONSE OF THE ORGANISM DURING THE RECEIPT OF THE COUNTER- EFFORT

AXIOM 98	FREE EMOTIONAL RESPONSE DEPENDS ON OPTIMUM RANDOMITY IT DEPENDS UPON ABSENCE OF OR NON-RESTIMULATION OF ENGRAMS

AXIOM 99	THETA FACSIMILES CAN RECOMBINE INTO NEW SYMBOLS

AXIOM 100	LANGUAGE IS THE SYMBOLIZATION OF EFFORT

AXIOM 101	LANGUAGE DEPENDS FOR ITS FORCE UPON THE FORCE WHICH ACCOMPANIED ITS DEFINITION

	(Note: Counter-effort, not language, is aberrative)

AXIOM 102	THE ENVIRONMENT CAN OCCLUDE THE CENTRAL CONTROL OF ANY ORGANISM AND ASSUME CONTROL OF THE MOTOR CONTROLS OF THAT ORGANISM (ENGRAM, RESTIMULATION, LOCKS, HYPNOTISM)

AXIOM 103	INTELLIGENCE DEPENDS ON THE ABILITY TO SELECT ALIGNED OR MISALIGNED DATA FROM AN AREA OF RANDOMITY AND SO DISCOVER A SOLUTION TO REDUCE ALL RANDOMITY IN THAT AREA
AXIOM 104	PERSISTENCE OBTAINS IN THE ABILITY OF THE MIND TO PUT SOLUTIONS INTO PHYSICAL ACTION TOWARD THE REALIZATION OF GOALS

AXIOM 105	AN UNKNOWN DATUM CAN PRODUCE DATA OF PLUS OR MINUS  RANDOMITY

AXIOM106	THE INTRODUCTION OF AN ARBITRARY FACTOR OR FORCE WITHOUT RECOURSE TO NATURAL LAWS OF THE BODY OR THE  AREA INTO WHICH THE ARBITRARY IS INTRODUCED BRINGS  ABOUT PLUS OR MINUS RANDOMITY

AXIOM107	DATA OF PLUS OR MINUS RANDOMITY DEPENDS FOR ITS CONFUSION ON FORMER PLUS OR MINUS RANDOMITY OR ABSENT DATA

AXIOM108	EFFORTS WHICH ARE INHIBITED OR COMPELLED BY EXTERIOR  EFFORTS EFFECT A PLUS OR MINUS RANDOMITY OF EFFORTS

AXIOM109	BEHAVIOR IS MODIFIED BY COUNTER-EFFORTS WHICH HAVE  IMPINGED ON THE ORGANISM

AXIOM110	THE COMPONENT PARTS OF THETA ARE AFFINITY, REALITY, AND COMMUNICATION

AXIOM111	SELF-DETERMINISM CONSISTS OF MAXIMAL AFFINITY, REALITY AND COMMUNICATION

AXIOM112	AFFINITY IS THE COHESION OF THETA

	Affinity manifests itself as the recognition of similarity of efforts and goals amongst organisms by those organisms

AXIOM113	REALITY IS THE AGREEMENT UPON PERCEPTIONS AND DATA IN THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE

 	All that we can be sure is real is that on which we have agreed is real Agreement is the essence of reality

AXIOM114	COMMUNICATION IS THE INTERCHANGE OF PERCEPTION THROUGH THE MATERIAL UNIVERSE BETWEEN ORGANISMS OR THE PERCEPTION OF THE MATERIAL UNIVERSE BY SENSE CHANNELS

AXIOM115	SELF-DETERMINISM IS THE THETA CONTROL OF THE ORGANISM

AXIOM116	A SELF-DETERMINED EFFORT IS THAT COUNTER-EFFORT  WHICH HAS BEEN RECEIVED INTO THE ORGANISM IN THE  PAST AND INTEGRATED INTO THE ORGANISM FOR ITS CONSCIOUS USE

AXIOM117	THE COMPONENTS OF SELF-DETERMINISM ARE AFFINITY, COMMUNICATION AND REALITY

	Self-determinism is manifested along each dynamic

AXIOM118	AN ORGANISM CANNOT BECOME ABERRATED UNLESS IT HAS AGREED UPON THAT ABERRATION, HAS BEEN IN  COMMUNICATION WITH A SOURCE OF ABERRATION, AND HAS HAD AFFINITY FOR THE ABERRATOR

AXIOM119	AGREEMENT WITH ANY SOURCE, CONTRA- OR PRO- SURVIVAL, POSTULATES A NEW REALITY FOR THE ORGANISM
AXIOM120	NON-SURVIVAL COURSES, THOUGHTS AND ACTIONS REQUIRE NON-OPTIMUM EFFORT

AXIOM121	EVERY THOUGHT HAS BEEN PRECEDED BY PHYSICAL ACTION

AXIOM122	THE MIND DOES WITH THOUGHT AS IT HAS DONE WITH ENTITIES IN THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE

AXIOM123	ALL EFFORT CONCERNED WITH PAIN IS CONCERNED WITH LOSS

	Organisms hold pain and engrams to them as a latent effort to prevent loss of some portion of the organism

	All loss is a loss of motion

AXIOM124	THE AMOUNT OF COUNTER-EFFORT THE ORGANISM CAN OVERCOME IS PROPORTIONAL TO THE THETA ENDOWMENT OF THE ORGANISM, MODIFIED BY THE PHYSIQUE OF THAT ORGANISM

AXIOM125	EXCESSIVE COUNTER-EFFORT TO THE EFFORT OF A LIFE ORGANISM PRODUCES UNCONSCIOUSNESS

AXIOM126	PERCEPTIONS ARE ALWAYS RECEIVED IN THE CONTROL CENTER OF AN ORGANISM WHETHER THE CONTROL CENTER IS IN CONTROL OF THE ORGANISM AT THE TIME OR NOT

	This is an explanation for the assumption of valences

AXIOM127	ALL PERCEPTIONS REACHING THE ORGANISM’S SENSE  CHANNELS ARE RECORDED AND STORED BY THETA FACSIMILE

AXIOM128	ANY ORGANISM CAN RECALL EVERYTHING WHICH IT HAS PERCEIVED

AXIOM129	AN ORGANISM DISPLACED BY PLUS OR MINUS RANDOMITY IS THEREAFTER REMOTE FROM THE PERCEPTION RECORDING CENTER

	Increased remoteness brings about occlusions of perceptions one can perceive things in present time and then, because they are being recorded after they passed Theta perception of the awareness unit, they are recorded but cannot be recalled

AXIOM130	THETA FACSIMILES OF COUNTER-EFFORT ARE ALL THAT INTERPOSE BETWEEN THE CONTROL CENTER AND ITS RECALLS

AXIOM131 	ANY COUNTER-EFFORT RECEIVED INTO A CONTROL CENTER IS  ALWAYS ACCOMPANIED BY ALL PERCEPTICS

AXIOM132	THE RANDOM COUNTER-EFFORTS TO AN ORGANISM AND THE INTERMINGLED PERCEPTIONS IN THE RANDOMITY CAN RE- EXERT THAT FORCE UPON AN ORGANISM WHEN RESTIMULATED
	DEFINITION: RESTIMULATION IS THE REACTIVATION OF A PAST COUNTER-EFFORT BY APPEARANCE IN THE ORGANISM’S ENVIRONMENT OF A SIMILARITY TOWARD THE CONTENT OF THE PAST RANDOMITY AREA

AXIOM133	SELF-DETERMINISM ALONE BRINGS ABOUT THE MECHANISM OF RESTIMULATION

AXIOM134	A REACTIVATED AREA OF THE PAST RANDOMITY IMPINGES THE EFFORT AND THE PERCEPTIONS UPON THE ORGANISM

AXIOM135	ACTIVATION OF A RANDOMITY AREA IS ACCOMPLISHED FIRST BY  THE PERCEPTIONS, THEN BY THE PAIN, FINALLY BY THE EFFORT

AXIOM136	THE MIND IS PLASTICALLY CAPABLE OF RECORDING ALL EFFORTS AND COUNTER-EFFORTS

AXIOM137	A COUNTER-EFFORT ACCOMPANIED BY SUFFICIENT (ENRANDOMED) FORCE IMPRESSES THE FACSIMILE OF THE  COUNTER-EFFORT PERSONALITY INTO THE MIND OF AN ORGANISM

AXIOM138	ABERRATION IS THE DEGREE OF RESIDUAL PLUS OR MINUS RANDOMITY ACCUMULATED BY COMPELLING, INHIBITING, OR UNWARRANTED ASSISTING OF EFFORTS ON THE PART OF OTHER ORGANISMS OR THE PHYSICAL (MATERIAL) UNIVERSE

	Aberration is caused by what is done to the individual, not what the  individual does, plus his self-determinism about what has been done to him

AXIOM139	ABERRATED BEHAVIOR CONSISTS OF DESTRUCTIVE EFFORT TOWARD PRO-SURVIVAL DATA OR ENTITIES ON ANY DYNAMIC,OR EFFORT TOWARD THE SURVIVAL OF CONTRA-SURVIVAL  DATA OR ENTITIES FOR ANY DYNAMIC

AXIOM140	A VALENCE IS A FACSIMILE PERSONALITY MADE CAPABLE OF  FORCE BY THE COUNTER-EFFORT OF THE MOMENT OR  RECEIPT INTO THE PLUS OR MINUS RANDOMITY OF  UNCONSCIOUSNESS

	Valences are assistive, compulsive or inhibitive to the organism

	A CONTROL CENTER IS NOT A VALENCE

AXIOM141	A CONTROL CENTER EFFORT IS ALIGNED TOWARD A GOALTHROUGH DEFINITE SPACE AS A RECOGNIZED INCIDENT IN TIME

AXIOM142	AN ORGANISM IS AS HEALTHY AND SANE AS IT IS SELF- DETERMINED

	The environmental control of the organism motor-controls inhibits the organism’s ability to change with the changing environment,since the organism will attempt to carry forward with one set of responses when it needs by self-determinism to create another tosurvive in another environment

AXIOM143	ALL LEARNING IS ACCOMPLISHED BY RANDOM EFFORT

AXIOM144	A COUNTER-EFFORT PRODUCING SUFFICIENT PLUS OR MINUS RANDOMITY TO RECORD IS RECORDED WITH AN INDEX OF  SPACE AND TIME AS HIDDEN AS THE REMAINDER OF ITS CONTENT

AXIOM145	A COUNTER-EFFORT PRODUCING SUFFICIENT PLUS OR MINUS RANDOMITY WHEN ACTIVATED BY RESTIMULATION EXERTS ITSELF AGAINST THE ENVIRONMENT OR THE ORGANISM WITHOUT REGARD TO SPACE AND TIME, EXCEPT REACTIVATED PERCEPTIONS

AXIOM146	COUNTER-EFFORTS ARE DIRECTED OUT FROM THE ORGANISM  UNTIL THEY ARE FURTHER ENRANDOMED BY THE ENVIRON AT WHICH TIME THEY AGAIN ACTIVATE AGAINST THE CONTROL  CENTER

AXIOM147	AN ORGANISM’S MIND EMPLOYS COUNTER-EFFORTS EFFECTIVELY ONLY SO LONG AS INSUFFICIENT PLUS OR MINUS RANDOMITY EXISTS TO HIDE DIFFERENTIATION OF THE  FACSIMILES CREATED

AXIOM148	PHYSICAL LAWS ARE LEARNED BY LIFE ENERGY ONLY BY IMPINGEMENT OF THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE PRODUCING RANDOMITY, AND A WITHDRAWAL FROM THAT IMPINGEMENT

AXIOM149	LIFE DEPENDS UPON AN ALIGNMENT OF FORCE VECTORS IN THE DIRECTION OF SURVIVAL AND THE NULLIFICATION OF FORCE VECTORS IN THE DIRECTION OF SUCCUMB IN ORDER TO SURVIVE

	COROLLARY: LIFE DEPENDS UPON AN ALIGNMENT OF FORCE VECTORS IN THE DIRECTION OF SUCCUMB AND THE NULLIFICATION OF FORCE VECTORS IN THE DIRECTION OF SUCCUMB AND THE NULLIFICATION OF FORCE VECTORS IN THE DIRECTION OF SURVIVE IN ORDER TO SUCCUMB

AXIOM150	ANY AREA OF RANDOMITY GATHERS TO IT SITUATIONS SIMILAR TO IT WHICH DO NOT CONTAIN ACTUAL EFFORTS BUT ONLY PERCEPTION

AXIOM151	WHETHER AN ORGANISM HAS THE GOAL OF SURVIVING OR SUCCUMBING DEPENDS UPON THE AMOUNT OF PLUS OR MINUS RANDOMITY IT HAS REACTIVATED (NOT RESIDUAL)

AXIOM152	SURVIVAL IS ACCOMPLISHED ONLY BY MOTION

AXIOM153	IN THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE THE ABSENCE OF MOTION IS VANISHMENT

AXIOM154	DEATH IS THE EQUIVALENT TO LIFE OF TOTAL LACK OF LIFE-  MOTIVATED MOTION

AXIOM155	ACQUISITION OF PRO-SURVIVAL MATTER AND ENERGY OR ORGANISMS IN SPACE AND TIME MEANS INCREASED MOTION

AXIOM156	LOSS OF PRO-SURVIVAL MATTER AND ENERGY OR ORGANISMS IN SPACE AND TIME MEANS DECREASED MOTION

AXIOM157 	ACQUISITION OR PROXIMITY OF MATTER, ENERGY OR  ORGANISMS WHICH ASSIST THE SURVIVAL OF AN ORGANISM INCREASE THE SURVIVAL POTENTIALS OF AN ORGANISM

AXIOM158	ACQUISITION OR PROXIMITY OF MATTER, ENERGY OR ORGANISMS WHICH INHIBIT THE SURVIVAL OF AN ORGANISM DECREASE ITS SURVIVAL POTENTIAL

AXIOM159	GAIN OF SURVIVAL ENERGY, MATTER OR ORGANISMS INCREASES THE FREEDOM OF AN ORGANISM

AXIOM160	RECEIPT OR PROXIMITY OF NON-SURVIVAL ENERGY, MATTER OR TIME DECREASES THE FREEDOM OF MOTION OF AN ORGANISM

AXIOM161	THE CONTROL CENTER ATTEMPTS THE HALTING OR LENGTHENING OF TIME, THE EXPANSION OR CONTRACTION OF SPACE AND THE DECREASE OR INCREASE OF ENERGY AND MATTER

	This is a primary source of invalidation, and it is also a primary  source of aberration

AXIOM162 	PAIN IS THE BALK OF EFFORT BY COUNTER-EFFORT IN GREAT INTENSITY, WHETHER THAT EFFORT IS TO REMAIN AT REST OR IN MOTION

AXIOM163	PERCEPTION, INCLUDING PAIN, CAN BE EXHAUSTED FROM AN AREA OF PLUS OR MINUS RANDOMITY, STILL LEAVING THE EFFORT AND COUNTER-EFFORT OF THAT PLUS OR MINUS RANDOMITY

AXIOM164	THE RATIONALITY OF THE MIND DEPENDS UPON AN OPTIMUM REACTION TOWARD TIME

	DEFINITION: SANITY, THE COMPUTATION OF FUTURES

	DEFINITION: NEUROTIC, THE COMPUTATION OF PRESENT TIME ONLY

	DEFINITION: PSYCHOTIC, COMPUTATION ONLY OF PAST SITUATIONS

AXIOM 165  	SURVIVAL PERTAINS ONLY TO THE FUTURE

	COROLLARY: SUCCUMB PERTAINS ONLY TO THE PRESENT AND PAST

AXIOM166	AN INDIVIDUAL IS AS HAPPY AS HE CAN PERCEIVE SURVIVAL POTENTIALS IN THE FUTURE

AXIOM167	AS THE NEEDS OF ANY ORGANISM ARE MET IT RISES HIGHER AND HIGHER IN ITS EFFORTS ALONG THE DYNAMICS

 	An organism which achieves ARC with itself can better achieve ARCwith sex in the future; having achieved this it can achieve ARC with groups; having achieved this, it can achieve ARC with mankind, etc

AXIOM168	AFFINITY, REALITY AND COMMUNICATION CO-EXIST IN AN INEXTRICABLE RELATIONSHIP

	The co-existent relationship between affinity, reality andcommunication is such that none can be increased without increasing the other two and none can be decreased withoutdecreasing the other two

AXIOM169	ANY AESTHETIC PRODUCT IS A SYMBOLIC FACSIMILE OR COMBINATION OF FACSIMILES OF THETA OR PHYSICAL UNIVERSES IN VARIED RANDOMITIES AND VOLUMES OF RANDOMITIES WITH THE INTERPLAY OF TONES

AXIOM170	AN AESTHETIC PRODUCT IS AN INTERPRETATION OF THE UNIVERSES BY AN INDIVIDUAL OR GROUP MIND

AXIOM171	DELUSION IS THE POSTULATION BY THE IMAGINATION OF OCCURRENCES IN AREAS OF PLUS OR MINUS RANDOMITY

AXIOM172	DREAMS ARE THE IMAGINATIVE RECONSTRUCTION OF AREAS OF RANDOMITY OR THE RE-SYMBOLIZATION OF THE EFFORTS OF THETA 

AXIOM173	A MOTION IS CREATED BY THE DEGREE OF OPTIMUM RANDOMITY INTRODUCED BY THE COUNTER-EFFORT TO AN  ORGANISM’S EFFORT

AXIOM174	MEST WHICH HAS BEEN MOBILIZED BY LIFE FORMS IS IN MORE AFFINITY WITH LIFE ORGANISMS THAN NON-MOBILIZED MEST

AXIOM175	ALL PAST PERCEPTION, CONCLUSION AND EXISTENCE  MOMENTS, INCLUDING THOSE OF PLUS OR MINUS RANDOMITY, ARE RECOVERABLE TO THE CONTROL CENTER OF THE ORGANISM 

AXIOM176	THE ABILITY TO PRODUCE SURVIVAL EFFORT ON THE PART OF AN ORGANISM IS AFFECTED BY THE DEGREES OF RANDOMITY EXISTING IN ITS PAST (THIS INCLUDES LEARNING)

AXIOM177	AREAS OF PAST PLUS OR MINUS RANDOMITY CAN BE  READDRESSED BY THE CONTROL CENTER OF AN ORGANISM  AND THE PLUS OR MINUS RANDOMITY EXHAUSTED

AXIOM178	THE EXHAUSTION OF PAST PLUS OR MINUS RANDOMITIES  PERMITS THE CONTROL CENTER OF AN ORGANISM TO EFFECT ITS OWN EFFORTS TOWARD SURVIVAL GOALS

AXIOM179	THE EXHAUSTION OF SELF-DETERMINED EFFORT FROM A PAST  AREA OF PLUS OR MINUS RANDOMITY NULLIFIES THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THAT AREA

AXIOM180	PAIN IS THE RANDOMITY PRODUCED BY SUDDEN OR STRONG COUNTER-EFFORTS

AXIOM181	PAIN IS STORED AS PLUS OR MINUS RANDOMITY

AXIOM182	PAIN, AS AN AREA OF PLUS OR MINUS RANDOMITY, CAN RE-INFLICT ITSELF UPON THE ORGANISM

AXIOM183	PAST PAIN BECOMES INEFFECTIVE UPON THE ORGANISM WHEN THE RANDOMITY OF ITS AREA IS ADDRESSED AND ALIGNED
	
AXIOM184	THE EARLIER THE AREA OF PLUS OR MINUS RANDOMITY, THE  GREATER SELF-PRODUCED EFFORT EXISTED TO REPEL IT

AXIOM185	LATER AREAS OF PLUS OR MINUS RANDOMITY CANNOT BE RE- ALIGNED EASILY UNTIL EARLIER AREAS ARE RE-ALIGNED

AXIOM186	AREAS OF PLUS OR MINUS RANDOMITY BECOME INCREASED INACTIVITY WHEN PERCEPTIONS OF SIMILARITY ARE INTRODUCED INTO THEM 

AXIOM187	PAST AREAS OF PLUS OR MINUS RANDOMITY CAN BE REDUCED AND ALIGNED BY ADDRESS TO THEM IN PRESENT TIME

AXIOM188	ABSOLUTE GOOD AND ABSOLUTE EVIL DO NOT EXIST IN THE  MEST UNIVERSE

AXIOM189	THAT WHICH IS GOOD FOR AN ORGANISM MAY BE DEFINED AS THAT WHICH PROMOTES THE SURVIVAL OF THAT ORGANISM

	COROLLARY: EVIL MAY BE DEFINED AS THAT WHICH INHIBITS OR BRINGS  PLUS OR MINUS RANDOMITY INTO THE ORGANISM, WHICH ISCONTRARY TO THE SURVIVAL MOTIVES OF THE ORGANISM

AXIOM190	HAPPINESS CONSISTS IN THE ACT OF BRINGING ALIGNMENT  INTO HITHERTO RESISTING PLUS OR MINUS RANDOMITY  NEITHER THE ACT OR ACTION OF ATTAINING SURVIVAL, NOR THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THIS ACT ITSELF, BRINGS ABOUT HAPPINESS

AXIOM191	CONSTRUCTION IS AN ALIGNMENT OF DATA

	COROLLARY: DESTRUCTION IS A PLUS OR MINUS RANDOMITY OF DATA

	The effort of construction is the alignment toward the survival ofthe aligning organism

	Destruction is the effort of bringing randomity into an area

AXIOM192	OPTIMUM SURVIVAL BEHAVIOR CONSISTS OF EFFORT IN THE MAXIMUM SURVIVAL INTEREST IN EVERYTHING CONCERNED  IN THE DYNAMICS

AXIOM193	THE OPTIMUM SURVIVAL SOLUTION OF ANY PROBLEM WOULD CONSIST OF THE HIGHEST ATTAINABLE SURVIVAL FOR EVERY DYNAMIC CONCERNED

AXIOM194	THE WORTH OF ANY ORGANISM CONSISTS OF ITS VALUE TO THE SURVIVAL OF ITS OWN THETA ALONG ANY DYNAMIC

Advanced Procedure and Axioms
1951

THE FIFTY-FIVE HUMAN PERCEPTIONS

(RESEARCHED 1951) 

“The overall subject of communication covers far more than the exchange of intelligence. Basically, communication could be called the science of perceptions.”

Science of Survival

1.	  TIME 
2.	  SIGHT
3.	  TASTE
4.	  COLOR
5.	  SOLIDITY (BARRIERS)
6.	  RELATIVE SIZES (EXTERNAL)
7.	  SOUND
8.	  PITCH
9.	  TONE
10.	 VOLUME
11.	 RHYTHM
12.	 SMELL (4 SUBDIVISIONS)
13.	 TOUCH (4 SUBDIVISIONS)
14.	 PERSONAL EMOTION
15.	 ENDOCRINE STATES
16.	 AWARENESS OF AWARENESS
17.	 PERSONAL SIZE
18.	 ORGANIC SENSATION (INCLUDING HUNGER)
19.	 HEARTBEAT
20.	 BLOOD CIRCULATION
21.	 CELLULAR AND BACTERIAL POSITION  
22.	 GRAVITIC (SELF AND OTHER WEIGHTS)
23.	 MOTION OF SELF
24.	 MOTION (EXTERIOR)
25.	 BODY POSITION
26.	 JOINT POSITION
27.	 INTERNAL TEMPERATURE
28.	 EXTERNAL TEMPERATURE
29.	 BALANCE
30.	 MUSCULAR TENSION
31.	 SALINE CONTENT OF SELF (BODY)
32.	 FIELDS/MAGNETIC
33.	 TIME TRACK MOTION
34.	 PHYSICAL ENERGY (PERSONAL WEARINESS, etc.	)
35.	 SELF DETERMINISM (RELATIVE ON EACH DYNAMIC)
36.	 MOISTURE (SELF)
37.	 SOUND DIRECTION
38.	 EMOTIONAL STATE OF OTHER ORGANS
39.	 PERSONAL POSITION ON THE TONE SCALE
40.	 AFFINITY (SELF AND OTHERS)
41.	 COMMUNICATION (SELF AND OTHERS)
42.	 REALITY (SELF AND OTHERS)
43.	 EMOTIONAL STATE OF GROUPS
44.	 COMPASS DIRECTION
45.	 LEVEL OF CONSCIOUSNESS
46.	 PAIN
47.	 PERCEPTION OF CONCLUSIONS (PAST AND PRESENT)
48.	 PERCEPTION OF COMPUTATION (PAST AND PRESENT)
49.	 PERCEPTION OF IMAGINATION (PAST AND PRESENT)
50.	 PERCEPTION OF HAVING PERCEIVED (PAST AND PRESENT)
51.	 AWARENESS OF NOT-KNOWING
52.	 AWARENESS OF IMPORTANCE, UNIMPORTANCE
53.	 AWARENESS OF OTHERS
54.	 AWARENESS OF LOCATION AND PLACEMENT
	(a) MASSES
	(a) SPACES
	(c) LOCATION ITSELF
55. 	PERCEPTION OF APPETITE (PROBLEM COVERED UNDER 18)

17 March 1970

A BOOK OF SCALES

SCALES

	“A graduated series or scheme of rank or order.”
	“A graded series of tests or of performances used in rating individual intelligence or achievement.”

Websters Seventh New Collegiate

	The term “gradient scale” can be applied to anything, and means a scale of condition graduated from zero to infinity. Depending on the direction in which the scale is graduated, there could be an infinity of wrongness or an infinity of rightness.

	Absolutes are considered unobtainable.

	The difference between one point on these scales and another point could be as different or as wide as the entire range of the scale itself, or it could be so tiny as to need the most minute discernment for its establishment.

	Life in its highest state (top of the scale) is understanding. Life in its lower states is in a lower level of understanding.

	Understanding is composed of Affinity, Reality and Communication. This triangle tells us that the co-existent relationship between affinity, reality and communication is such that none can be decreased without decreasing the other two. Of the three, COMMUNICATION is by far the most important. Affinity and reality exist to further communication. Under the heading of affinity we have, for instance, all the varied emotions which go from apathy at 0.1 through grief, fear, anger, antagonism, boredom, enthusiasm, exhilaration and serenity IN THAT ORDER. It is affinity and this rising scale of the characteristics of emotion which give us the Tone Scale.
	
	The characteristics and potentiality of the top of the scale or near the top are unbounded creation, outflow, certainty, certainty of awareness, going-awayness, explosion, holding apart, spreading apart, letting go, reaching, goals of a causative nature, widening space, freedom from time, separateness, differentiation, givingness of sensation, vaporizingness, glowingness, lightness, whiteness, desolidifyingness, total awareness, total understanding, total ARC.

	The bottom of the scale and the vicinity around it includes death, inflow, certainty (of unawareness), coming-backness, implosion, letting-come-together, pulling together, holding together, with-drawing, effect goals (ambition to be an effect rather than a cause), contracting space, no time or infinite time in a moment, connectingness, identification, identity, receivingness of sensation, condensation, blackness, solidification, no awareness, no understanding, no ARC.

	The various characteristics or intentions are observable for any dynamic and any universe.

	Between these two extremes is the mean of action where complete freedom to do any of these things of the top or bottom of the scale is exercised. Therefore, somewhere between 3.5 on the Tone Scale and 36.5, there is action.

	Wherever you find an individual on any of the following scales, that is his level of ARC. As a person goes up scale in auditing, he goes up scale on gradients of ARC.
THE TONE SCALE

1950

4.0	Cheerfulness
3.0	Conservatism
2.5	Boredom
2.0	Antagonism
1.5	Anger (Overt Hostility)
1.1	Covert Hostility
1.0	Fear
0.5	Grief
0.2	Apathy

EMOTION AND AFFINITY SCALE

The emotional scale refers to the subjective feelings of the individual; the affinity scale refers to his relation with other people. The affinity scale may refer, at any particular time, to just one, or to a small number of people. But as affinity is suppressed repeatedly, the individual will begin to take on an habitual tone level on the affinity scale, an habitual reaction to almost all people.

EMOTION		AFFINITY

Tone 4

Eagerness-exhilaration	Love-strong, outgoing

3.5Strong interest		Friendliness
Mild interest		Tentative advances

Tone 3
Content 			Tolerance without much out-
			going action - acceptance  
			of advances offered
2.5
Indifference		Neglect of person or people
Boredom 			Dislike, attempts to get
			away from them

Tone 2
Expressed resentment 	Antagonism

1.5
Anger			Hate, violent and expressed
Unexpressed resentment	Covert hostility

Tone 1
Fear 			Acute Shyness, propitiation,
			withdrawal from people

0.5Grief  	Supplication, pleas for pity, desperate 	
	attempts to win support

Apathy  	Complete withdrawal from person or people 	
	no attempt to contact

Notes on the Lectures
1950

REALITY AND COMMUNICATION SCALE

	The reality scale refers to the individuals hold on reality and his agreement with others on what reality is. Reality breaks are actually disagreements on reality, usually resulting only from a different viewpoint and not from actual differences in reality itself. The communication scale refers to the individual’s ability to communicate with other people.

REALITY	COMMUNICATION

Tone 4

SEARCH FOR DIFFERENT VIEW- 	ABILITY TO COMMUNICATE 
POINTS and changes in 	COMPLETELY, witholding
reality in order to broaden  	nothing; ability to
own reality - complete	create and construct
flexibility in understan- 	through conversation
ding, relating and eval-
uating different realities

3.5

ABILITY TO UNDERSTAND, 	SWIFT EXCHANGE of deepseated,
RELATE AND EVALUATE  	deeply felt beliefs and ideas  
REALITY,regardless of change or
difference in viewpoint,
moderate flexibility in
realities brought to 
view without eager search
for new ones 

ATTEMPTS TO RECONCILE	TENTATIVE EXPRESSION of OWN reality with conflicting reality 	limited number of personal beliefs and 		- limited flexibility of ideas

Tone 3

AWARENESS OF POSSIBLE 	CASUAL EXCHANGE of superficial chatter
VALIDITY of different 		
reality (viewpoint)
without relating it to
own reality 

2.5

INDIFFERENCE TO CONFLIC-  	INDIFFERENCE TO COMMUNICA-
TING REALITY - “Maybe -	TION of others - “Let’s not who cares?
“argue about it” attitude -	attitude if toward environment,
dismissal of communication - 	 
not trying to get percep-
tics clear

REFUSAL TO MATCH TWO  	REFUSAL TO ACCEPT COMMUNI-
REALITIES, rejection  	CATION of other person (or
of conflicting reality	environment) - turning to
“So what?” attitude	other sources of communication
VERBAL DOUBT - defence	INDIRECT POT-SHOOTING, 
own reality, attempts to  	nagging, nasty cracks, in-
undermine others	validating other person or
situation

1.5

DESTRUCTION OF OPPOSING	SHUTTING OFF OTHER person’s
REALITY, wrecking or  	communication, destruction
changing it, knocking out 	of it - “Shut up!” “Drop it!” 
props from other persons  
reality - “You’re wrong”!
attitude. If reality is
environmental, destruc- 
tion is accomplished 
only through change

DOUBT OF OPPOSING REALITY,  	STUBBORN SILENCE, sulking,
non-verbal disbelief, 	refusal to communicate 
refusal to accept con-	further, rejection of 
flicting reality with-	attempted communication
out trying to fight back  	by others

Tone 1

DOUBT OF OWN REALITY -	LYING to avoid real commu-
insecurity; attempts to	cation; can take the form
gain reassurance; if  	of pretended agreement,
reality is environmental -	flattery or verbal 
appeasement of gods or	appeasements; or simply a
elements 	false picture of person’s 
	feelings and ideas; false
	facade, artificial personality
	
0.5

SHAME, anxiety, strong	EVASIVENESS to avoid com- 
doubt of own reality with 	munication; hiding person’s 
consequent inability to	own thoughts and feelings
act within it, must be	superficial communication  
told what to do if person 	built on accepted standards
is to act at all, afraid  	without relation to 
to act himself since he	person’s real feelings; or
has no way to assess  	schizoid secrecy
consequences

COMPLETE WITHDRAWAL from  	INABILITY TO COMMUNICATE,
conflicting reality;  	completely unresponsive
refusal to test own reality
against conflicting one;
Locked in own rigid 
reality - psychotic 

Tone 0

Notes on the Lectures
1950
BEHAVIOR AND PHYSIOLOGICAL SCALE

	This refers to objective events which can be measured

BEHAVIOR  	PHYSIOLOGY

Tone 4 

Motion toward, 	Full control of autonomic by 
swift approach 	cortex, both cranio-sacral and
	thoracolumbar systems of auto-
	nomic functioning at optimum
	under direction of cortex;
	muscle tone excellent; reactions
	excellent; energy level high
3.5 

Motion toward, 	Moderate control of autonomic by
approach  	cortex; cranio-sacral function-
ing well, 	thoracolumbar slightly
	depressed; muscle tone good; 
	reactions good; energy level
	moderate

Motion toward, 	Autonomic functioning independent
slow approach  	of cortex; cranio-sacral func-
	tioning well, slight activity in
	thoracolumbar muscle tone fair;
	energy level fair

Tone 3

No motion,  	Autonomic independent of cortex;
Stay 	cranio-sacral functioning well,
	but no activity in thoracolum-
	bar; muscle tone, reaction time
	and energy level poor

2.5 

Motion away,	Autonomic begins to take over
recede slowly  	control; cranio-sacral inhibi-  
	ted, thoracolumbar up; slight 
	restlessness, heightened 
	activity, wavering attention

Motion away,	Increased activity thoracolumbar
Recede quickly 	cranio-sacral more suppressed;
	increased restlessness, wavering
	of attention, inability to
	concentrate
Tone 2

Motion toward, 	Increased activity of thoraco-
slow attack 	lumbar inhibition of cranio-
	sacral; irritability; increased
	heart action, spasmodic contrac-
	tions of gastro-intestinal 
	tract, respiration increased

Motion toward, 	Full autonomic mobilization for
violent attack 	violent attack; complete inhi-
	bition of cranio-sacral, tho-
	racolumbar in full action; res-
	piration and pulse fast and 
	deep; stasis of gastro-intes-
	tinal tract; blood to periphe-
	ral vascular system

Motion away,	Autonomic settles down to 
slow retreat	chronic rage reaction, inhibi-
	tion of cranio-sacral; imper-
	fect gastro-intestinal action;
	increased peripheral vascular
	circulation, increased pulse
	and respiration
Tone 1

Motion away,	Autonomic mobilization for full
violent flee	flight reaction; laxity of 
	gastrointestinal tract; all
	blood to peripheral vascular
	system, especially muscles for
	rapid flight; breathing and 
	pulse rapid and shallow

0.5 

Slight motion  	Autonomic mobilized for cry for 
agitation in one	help, grief; cranio-sacral on
place	full; thoracolumbar inhibited;
	Suffer deep, sobbing breathing; pulse
	hard and irregular; discharge
	of tears and other bodily 
	secretions

No motion,  	Shock reaction; thoracolumbar 
Succumb	inhibited; cranio-sacral full on
	gradually decreasing as organism
	approaches death; breathing
	shallow and irregular; pulse
	thready; blood pooled in 
	internal organs; muscles limp,
	lacking tone; pallor
Tone 0

In any particular situation two or three of the above patterns will predominate. Usually the behavior and physiological patterns will be involved in any suppressor action. The speed at which the organism descends the tone scale varies widely. It may be arrested at any point, it may stay withn one level for a long period of time before descending, or it may proceed so rapidly that the individual is unconscious almost before he realizes a suppressor is acting.

Notes on the Lectures
1950
SCALE OF MOTION

1951

See THE AXIOMS OF DIANETICS: 5, 11 and 28 - 31.

4.0  Cheer 	Returns motion constructively
3.5  Amusement	Turns motion to advantage
3.0  Conservatism 	Holds motion at a status quo
2.5  Boredom	Moves with any motion
2.0  Antagonism	Bats motion back
1.5  Anger 	Holds motion, to destroy
1.1  Covert Hostility	Avoids motion, moves secretly
0.5  Grief 	Is molded by motion
0.2  Apathy	Is pierced by motion

THE EMOTIONAL TONE SCALE

(1) THETAN-PLUS-BODY RANGE: 0.0 TO 4.0

(2) THETAN SCALE RANGE: -8.0 TO 40.0

	40.0	Serenity of Beingness
	8.0	Exhilaration
	4.0  	Enthusiasm
 	3.0  	Conservatism
  	2.5  	Boredom
	2.0  	Antagonism
	1.8  	Pain
	1.5  	Anger
 	1.2  	No Sympathy 
	1.1  	Covert Hostility
  	1.0  	Fear
 	0.9  	Sympathy
	0.8  	Propitiation
  	0.5  	Grief
	0.375  	Making Amends
	0.05  	Apathy
	0.0  	Being a Body (Death)	
 	-0.2  	Being Other Bodies 	
 	-1.0  	Punishing Other Bodies 	
 	-1.3  	Responsibility as Blame	
 	-1.5  	Controlling Bodies
 	-2.2  	Protecting Bodies
 	-3.0  	Owning Bodies  
 	-3.5  	Approval From Bodies
 	-4.0  	Needing Bodies
 	-8.0  	Hiding

HCO Bulletin of 18 September 1967
Corrected 4 April 1974

TONE SCALE IN FULL

TONE SCALE EXPANDED 	KNOW TO MYSTERY SCALE

Serenity of Beingness 	40.0	Know 
Postulates	30.0	Not Know
Games  	22.0 	Know About
Action  	20.0 	Look
Exhilaration	8.0	Plus Emotion
Aesthetic	6.0
Enthusiasm 	4.0
Cheerfulness  	3.5
Strong Interest  	3.3
Conservatism  	3.0
Mild Interest 	2.9
Contented	2.8
Disinterested 	2.6
Boredom  	2.5
Monotony 	2.4
Antagonism 	2.0	Minus Emotion
Hostility	1.9
Pain  	1.8
Anger 	1.5
Hate  	1.4
Resentment 	1.3  
No Sympathy	1.2
Unexpressed Resentment	1.15
Covert Hostility 	1.1
Anxiety  	1.02
Fear  	1.0
Despair	.98
Terror	.96
Numb	.94
Sympathy  	.9
Propitiation -(higher toned-
selectively gives)	.8
Grief  	.5
Making Amends -(propitiation-
can’t w/h anything)	.375
Undeserving	.3
Self-abasement  	.2
Victim 	.1
Hopeless  	.07
Apathy 	.05
Useless	.03
Dying  	.01
Body Death	0.0
Failure	0.0
Pity  	-0.1
Shame (being other bodies)	-0.2
Accountable	-0.7
Blame-(punishing other bodies) 	-1.0
Regret-(responsibility as blame)  	-1.3
Controlling Bodies	-1.5  	Effort
Protecting Bodies	-2.2  
Owning Bodies 	-3.0  	Think
Approval from Bodies	-3.5
Needing Bodies	-4.0  	Symbols
Worshipping Bodies	-5.0  	Eat
Sacrifice	-6.0  	Sex
Hiding	-8.0  	Mystery
Being Objects	-10.0  	Wait
Being Nothing	-20.0  	Unconscious
Can’t Hide	-30.0
Total Failure	-40.0

HCOB 25 Sept. 1971RA

DEI TO CDEI

	The original scale

4.0Desire
1.5Enforce
.5  Inhibit

	Was expanded in 1952 to

Curiosity
Desire
Enforce
Inhibit

	In 1959 I found another vital point on this scale 
	which gives us a new case entrance point -

Curiosity 
Desire
Enforce
Inhibit
Unknown

	(Suspecting also that “Wait” fits between Unknown and Inhibit)

	To Make these agree in intention, they would become

Interest
Desire
Enforce
Inhibit
Unknow

	This scale also is found to invert - similar to the Dynamics,
	and below sanity on any subject. Thus:

Unknow
Inhibit
Enforce
Desire
Interest

These points, particularly on the inverted scale, going down, are lowered by failure. Each lower step is an explanation to justify having failed with the upper level.

One seeks to not know something and fails. One then seeks to inhibit 	it and fails. Therefore one seeks to enforce it and fails. Thus one explains by desiring it and fails. And not really being able to have it, shows thereafter an obsessive interest in it.

	The above inversion is of course all reactive.

	A later expansion of the scale gives us:

K  Know
U  Unknow
C  Curious
D  Desire
E  Enforce
IInhibit
O  Absence of (“No....”)
F  Falsify

	Standard Tech Use

	The old DEI cycle gives us an important tool used in today’s standard technology for Level III, the handling of ARC Breaks. An “ARCU - CDEI” assessment uses:

A  Affinity
R  Reality
C  Communication
U  Understanding

	In conjunction with

C  Curious about .......
D  Desired .......
E  Enforced .......
I  Inhibited .......

	This is part of the Level III tech of R (Routine= 3H.)

	It works like a bomb.

CDEI CYCLE WITH LOWER SCALE

Curiosity

Desire

Enforcement

Inhibition

Ownership

Protection

Hidden

The Creation of Human Ability
R2-60  

POINTS OF CASE ADDRESS

Thought

Emotion

Effort

EXTENDED, THIS BECOMES:

Aesthetics

Reason

Emotion

Effort

Matter

Advanced Procedure and Axioms, 1951
Scientology 8-80, 1952

SCALE OF IDENTIFICATION

(1952)

Differentiate

Associate

Identify

Disassociate

A TABLE OF RELATIONSHIPS

40.0 	20.0 	0.0

Start	Change  	Stop

Space	Energy  	Time

Beingness	Doingness	Havingness

Positive	Current 	Negative

Creation	Alteration	Destruction

Conception	Living  	Death

Differentiation	Association	Identification

	ARC applies to each column or for any one of the above statements of experience.

	All eight dynamics apply to each column and thus to any of the above statements.

Scientology 8-8008

KNOW TO MYSTERY SCALE

(1953)

Knowingness
Lookingness
Emotingness
Effortingness
Thinkingness
Symbolizingness
Eatingness
Sexingness
Mystery

EXPANDED KNOW TO MYSTERY SCALE 

Native State
Not Know
Know About
Look
Emotion
Effort
Think
Symbols
Eat
Sex
Mystery
Wait
Unconscious

SCALE OF KNOWINGNESS

Know

Not-Know

Know About

Forget

Remember

Occlude

A PAN DETERMINISM SCALE

	“...is in total controversy to some of the most cherished beliefs of Man, but may I point out to you quickly that Man is not an entirely sane person, and thus some of his beliefs must be somewhat aberrated. There is such a thing as courage, but there is not such a thing as sanity totally opposed.”

-Dianetics 55!

PAN DETERMINISM

A willingness to start, change and
stop on any and all dynamics; to
start, change and stop two or more
forces, whether or not opposed. 
(Two or more individuals, two or
more groups, two or more planets,
two or more life-species, two or
more universes, two or more  
spirits, etc.)
Would not necessarily fight, 
choose sides.

FIGHTING  

A willingness to fight things, 
choose sides.

MUST/MUST NOT HAPPEN AGAIN 

Some willingness to associate and
repair, but no willingness to let
certain things happen again.

REPAIR 

Willingness to repair somewhat.

ASSOCIATION  

Willingness to associate somewhat.
Unwilling to repair anything.
Unwilling to associate with 
anything.

RESPONSIBILITY SCALE

	A DETERIORATION OF PAN DETERMINISM OVER A GAME
	INTO “NO RESPONSIBILITY”

NO PREVIOUS 
OR CURRENT CONTACT  		No responsibility or liability

PAN DETERMINISM		Full responsibility for both sides
					of game.

OTHER DETERMINISM		No responsibility for other side
					of game.

SELF DETERMINISM		Full responsibility for self, no
					responsibility for other side
					of game.

VALENCE (CIRCUIT)		No responsibility for the game, 
					for either side of the game or
					for a former self.

17 January 1962

HAVINGNESS SCALE

Create  

Responsible for (willing to control)

Contribute to

Have

Waste

Substitute

Waste substitute

Had

Must be confronted

Must be contributed to

Created

THE PRE-HAVINGNESS SCALE

Havingness
Failed Havingness
Interest
Failed Interest
Communication
Failed Communication
Control
Failed Control
Help
Failed Help
Overts
Failed Overts
Witholds
Failed Witholds
Importance
Failed Importance
Leave
Failed Leave
Protect
Failed Protect
Abandon
Failed to Abandon
Endure
Failed to Endure
Inverted Help
Inverted Control
Inverted Communication
Inverted Interest
Obsessive Can’t Have
No Effect

HCO Bulletin of 2 February 1961

EFFECT SCALE

Two Rules for Happy Living:

1.  	BE ABLE TO EXPERIENCE ANYTHING.

2.  	CAUSE ONLY THOSE THINGS WHICH OTHERS CAN EXPERIENCE  EASILY.

Scientology: A New Slant on Life

	The way a preclear receives an effect (effect tolerable on self) and the way he acts toward others, including the auditor (effect believed necessary on others) can be observed by an auditor and used to spot the preclear’s Tone level, either chronic or temporary, on any or all dynamics.

	These are some examples of what might be observed at different Tone levels.

ENTHUSIASM

EFFECT TOLERABLE ON SELF: 
	Can receive large effects on self (the man who loses his fortune and bounces back). He is willing to receive other people’s opinions, can accept large changes, he knows he has had a case change and is willing to change. He can accept defeats and will persist. Does not compulsively prevent effect on self.

EFFECT BELIEVED NECESSARY ON OTHERS: 
	He has considerable ability to create effects on others but is not under compulsion to create effects, he is not compelled to affect other people’s lives, he grants beingness, can tolerate differences in people.

CONSERVATISM

EFFECT TOLERABLE ON SELF: 
	Not very willing to receive effects that change the status quo. Not willing to be questioned on some subjects, not willing to have other people’s attention directed to him such as being pointed out in a crowd, wearing outstanding clothes, etc.

EFFECT BELIEVED NECESSARY ON OTHERS: 
	Believes effects which preserve the status quo are necessary. Somewhat cautious about creating an effect, witholds those things he thinks might hurt your feelings, or that you might not approve of. Believes he should not create too much effect but should be “one of the crowd”. Should respect the privacy of others.

BOREDOM

EFFECT TOLERABLE ON SELF: 
	Will receive any effect which produces a pleasant randomity, wants to be entertained but otherwise doesn’t like to be shifted. Can’t be bothered with most ideas and puts off any action.

EFFECT BELIEVED NECESSARY ON OTHERS: 
	Doesn’t need to do anything about anything, no compulsion to do or not to do (no action either).

ANGER

EFFECT TOLERABLE ON SELF: 
	Can’t receive an effect on self and is fighting to ensure this. PC stuck in an anger incident may manifest this in his inability to receive changes, affinity, others’ reality, communication, etc.

EFFECT BELIEVED NECESSARY ON OTHERS: 
	Must destroy anything that tries to create effect on him.

COVERTNESS

EFFECT TOLERABLE ON SELF: 
	Cannot tolerate much effect on self. Tries to slip out of being an effect by covert means. Gives the impression of taking an order, etc., while holding a destructive intent, and no intention to actually do it.

EFFECT BELIEVED NECESSARY ON OTHERS: 
	believes a large effect is necessary to handle others, is incapable of doing this in any other than a covert way. Must cause an effect but is unwilling to be known as the cause of bad effects. If accused of having created bad effects he will claim his intention was good. This PC will make excuses, will make all sorts of “conditions” in doing a process, will try to give an answer that will satisfy the auditor, without actually doing the command.

FEAR

EFFECT TOLERABLE ON SELF: 
	This person can take so little effect that he runs from the slightest thing, jumps at a door slam, etc. A PC in FEAR will manifest this by stiffness, leaning back in his chair, whistling during a session (whistling in the dark), he may turn pale, shake, cold sweat, avoid answering questions, squirm, laugh nervously, try to get out of session, etc.

EFFECT BELIEVED NECESSARY ON OTHERS: 
	Believes the effect he would have to create to overcome those things which overwhelm him is huge - so huge that he would rather go elsewhere than confront it. May make a lot of logical excuses to get out of being an effect (going upscale to covertness).

PROPITIATION

EFFECT TOLERABLE ON SELF: 
	Very little, does “favors” to protect himself against bad effects. Will try to appease the auditor to avoid continuing the process.

EFFECT BELIEVED NECESSARY ON OTHERS: 
	Propitiative actions.

GRIEF

EFFECT TOLERABLE ON SELF: 
	Tolerable effect would be the acquisition of tokens of a better time. PC with grief “just under the surface” may not be able to tolerate direct questioning on his problem without getting a lump in his throat or being brought to tears. Someone else’s grief might be enough effect to cause him to cry. A rough word might not be tolerable.

EFFECT BELIEVED NECESSARY ON OTHERS: 
	Believes that a large effect would have to be created to overcome his overwhelming opposition, but the idea of creating an effect on others produces the idea of loss and though he must create vast effects, he is very close to the idea that he cannot create ANY effect, thus the only thing he can do about it is cry.
APATHY

EFFECT TOLERABLE ON SELF: 
	Can accept even less effect here. This is the “no effect case”. Believes that everything is useless anyway, therefore nothing could make any difference on him. He will tell you that nothing is workable (apathetically).

EFFECT BELIEVED NECESSARY ON OTHERS: 
	Believes that an infinite amount of effect must be created to get anything done. (That’s why he is in apathy.)

EFFECT SCALE

From:	Can cause

	or receive

	any effect	40.0

To:  	Must cause

	total effect,

	can receive

	none	0.0

To:  	Is total effect,

	is hallucinatory

	cause	-8.0

AN AWARENESS SCALE

Aware of being aware

Awareness of an environment as sufficient communication

Knows of the existence of communication

Communication with the intention to communicate

Communication with significance with somebody else

Communication with significance

Communication with self with significance (worry)

	(Even here, some slight awareness that he is thinking a thought and communicating with the thought he is thinking)

Unconsciousness (Absolute unconsciousness is, however, unobtainable)

ACC/Staff Auditor’s Conference
4 April 1955
Magazine Articles on Level 0 Checksheet

SCALE OF CONFRONT

Beingness

Experience or, Participate

Ability to Confront

Elsewhereness (solution is “be elsewhere”)

Invisibility (“it’s just not there”)

Blackness

Dub-in (puts something else there)

Staff Auditor’s Conference
16 February 1959

REALITY-SPOTTING BY E-METER

1959

TONE		REALITY SCALE		REALITY SCALE  	NEEDLE
		(OLD)			(NEW) 		CHARACTERISTICS

40-20  	Postulates			Pan Determined 
					Creation 		Produces meter
							phenomena at
							will.

20-4		Consideration		Self Determined	Free Needle.
					 Creation

4-2		Agreements		Experience	Free Needle,
							drop at will.

1.5		Solid Terminals  		Confront  		Drop.

1.1		Terminals too 		Elsewhereness	Theta Bop.
		solid
		Lines solid

1-.5		No terminal 		Invisibility  
					Solid line		Stuck,
  							sticky.

.5-.1  		No terminal 		Blackness  
					Less solid line

.1 		No real terminal 		Dub-in
		No solid line		no confront,	Rising needle.
					not-is-ness

0.0		No terminal 		Unconsciousness  	STUCK. Also 
		No line 					Stage Four
							needle (“all
							machine-no pc).

	For complete description of human behavior at the above tone levels, study SCIENCE OF SURVIVAL with the Chart of Human Evaluation by L. Ron Hubbard. Learn also the HUBBARD CHART OF ATTITUDES (accompanies HANDBOOK FOR PRECLEARS  by L. Ron Hubbard).

	The above chart of correlations applies in two ways:

	(1) by the chronic standard reaction of the preclear

	(2) by type of material (facsimiles) contacted.

	For full description of Needle Characteristics listed above, see E-METER ESSENTIALS by Ron Hubbard, and THE BOOK INTRODUCING THE E-METER.

TIME SENSE, DETERIORATION OF

	Time sense deteriorates to the degree that one has depended upon matter, energy and space to tell time.

	We have known for many years that time is the Single Source of human aberration.

	Regard for time sums up, of course, into ARC about time, or just ARC.

	The dwindling spiral was as follows:

State A 	Time Sense

State B 	Time Sense dependent upon Matter, Energy and Space

State C 	ARC Breaks with Matter, Energy, Space and other beings

State D 	Deteriorated Time Sense

TIME and the TONE ARM 
HCOB 28 July 1963

CHARGE AND THE TIME TRACK

	Shakespeare said all life was a play. He was right insofar as the Time Track is a 3D, fifty-two perception movie which is a whole series of plays concerning the preclear. But the influence of it upon the preclear removes it from the class of pretense and play. It is not only very real, it IS what contains whatever it is that depresses the preclear to what he is today. Its savageness relieved, the preclear can recover, and only then. There is no other valid workable road.

	“Charge”, the stored quantities of energy in the Time Track, is the sole thing that is relieved or removed by the auditor from the Time Track. 

	When this charge is present in huge amounts the Time Track overwhelms the preclear and the preclear is thrust below observation of the actual track. He is caught in it.
	
	The job of the auditor is to free the thetan by digging him out of the Time Track.

STATE OF CASE SCALE

NO TRACK  		No Charge

FULL VISIBLE TIME TRACK  	Some Charge

SPORADIC VISIBILITY OF TRACK	Some heavily charged areas

INVISIBLE TRACK	Very heavily charged areas
(Black or Invisible Field)  	exist

DUB-IN 	Some areas of Track so 
	heavily charged preclear is
	below unconsciousness in them;
	only inaccurate copies 
	(pictures) of Track viewable

DUB-IN OF DUB-IN  	Many areas of Track so heavily
	charged the dub-in is submer-
	ged; delusive copies of 
	inaccurate copies only 
	viewable

ONLY AWARE OF OWN 	Track too heavily charged to
EVALUATIONS	be viewed at all

UNAWARE	Preclear dull, often in coma;
	total charge

THE TIME TRACK Bulletin 2
8 June 1963

AWARENESS CHARACTERISTICS

21  	SOURCE
20  	EXISTENCE
19  	CONDITIONS
18  	REALIZATION
17  	CLEARING
16  	PURPOSES
15  	ABILITY
14  	CORRECTION
13  	RESULT
12  	PRODUCTION
11  	ACTIVITY
10  	PREDICTION
9  	BODY
8  	ADJUSTMENT
7  	ENERGY
6  	ENLIGHTENMENT
5  	UNDERSTANDING
4  	ORIENTATION
3  	PERCEPTION
2  	COMMUNICATION
1  	RECOGNITION
-1  	HELP
-2  	HOPE

LOWER AWARENESS LEVELS

FROM HUMAN TO MATERIALITY

-3  	DEMAND FOR IMPROVEMENT
-4  	NEED OF CHANGE
-5  	FEAR OF WORSENING
-6  	EFFECT
-7  	RUIN
-8  	DESPAIR
-9  	SUFFERING
-10  	NUMBNESS
-11  	INTROVERSION
-12  	DISASTER
-13  	INACTUALITY
-14  	DELUSION
-15  	HYSTERIA
-16  	SHOCK
-17  	CATATONIA
-18  	OBLIVION
-19  	DETACHMENT
-20  	DUALITY
-21  	SECRECY
-22  	HALLUCINATION
-23  	SADISM
-24  	MASOCHISM
-25  	ELATION
-26  	GLEE
-27  	FIXIDITY
-28  	EROSION
-29  	DISPERSAL
-30  	DISASSOCIATION
-31  	CRIMINALITY
-32  	UNCAUSING
-33  	DISCONNECTION
-34  	UNEXISTENCE

THE BRIDGE

NAME OF STATE		DESCRIPTION

OT VIII AND ABOVE	Section VIII OT and above.
OT Course Section VIII and 	“There are perhaps 15 levels above 
above at Advanced Organi-  	OT VII fully developed but existing 
zations when issued.	only in unissued note form, pending
(Not yet released.) 	more people’s full attainment of OT
	VI and VII.”
L. Ron Hubbard
OT I THROUGH OT VII
OT Course Sections I-VII	OT I through VII.
at Advanced Organizations.

CLEAR	Ability to be at cause over mental
Clearing Course at  	matter, energy, space and time on
Advanced Organizations.	the 1st Dynamic. (Survival for self.)
				
Grade VI
WHOLE TRACK RELEASE 	Return of powers to act on own 
By auditing self on Grade  	determinism - Freedom from 
VI materials at	dramatization.
Advanced Organizations.

SOLO AUDITOR 	Ability to Solo Audit.
Solo Auditor’s Course
training given at
Advanced Organizations.

SOLO SET-UPS 	Fully prepared for Solo Auditing.
Given at Saint Hill or
Advanced Organization
HGCs as designated by
C/S.

Grade VA
POWER PLUS RELEASE  	Recovery of knowledge.
Given by Class VII 
and above auditors
at all Saint Hill
Organizations.

Grade V	Ability to handle power.
POWER RELEASE
Given by Class VII
and above auditors
at all Saint Hill
Organizations.

EXPANDED DIANETICS  	Freedom from cruel impulses and
COMPLETION	chronic unwanted conditions. Able
Audited and C/Sed by Hub-  	to act without restraint.
bard Graduate Dianetic
Specialists at Hubbard
Guidance Centers or as
student on Expanded 
Dianetics Course, or
as authorized.

Expanded Grade IV
ABILITY RELEASE	Moving out of fixed conditions and
Hubbard Guidance Centers	gaining ability to do new things.  
or as student on Academy
or Saint Hill Courses, or
as authorized.

Expanded Grade III
FREEDOM RELEASE	Freedom from the upsets of the past
Hubbard Guidance Centers	and ability to face the future.
or as student on 
Academy or Saint Hill
Courses, or as 
authorized.

Expanded Grade II
RELIEF RELEASE	Relief from hostilities and
Hubbard Guidance Centers	sufferings of life.
or as student on Academy 
or Saint Hill Courses,
or as authorized.

Expanded Grade I
PROBLEMS RELEASE	Ability to recognize the source of
Hubbard Guidance Centers	problems and make them vanish.
or as student on Academy
or Saint Hill Courses, 
or as authorized.

Expanded Grade 0
COMMUNICATIONS RELEASE 	Ability to communicate freely with
Hubbard Guidance Centers	anyone on any subject.
or as student on Academy
or Saint Hill Courses,
or as authorized.

DIANETIC CASE
COMPLETION	A well and happy human being.
Hubbard Guidance Centers,
Dianetic Counseling Groups,
Mission Auditors, or as
student on HSDC, Academy
or Saint Hill Courses.

Expanded ARC Straightwire
RECALL RELEASE	Knows he/she won’t get any worse.
Hubbard Guidance Centers
or as student on Level 0
or higher Academy or
Saint Hill Courses.

DRUG RUNDOWN 	Freedom from harmful effects of 
COMPLETION	drugs, alcohol and medicine and
Hubbard Guidance Centers,  	free from need to take them.
Dianetic Counseling Groups,
Mission Auditors, or as
student on HSDC, Academy 
or Saint Hill Courses.

LIFE REPAIR  	Awareness of truth and the way to 
COMPLETION	personal freedom.
Hubbard Guidance Centers
or as authorized.

GROUP PROCESSING
COMPLETION	Awareness that change is available.
Given in Scientology
Churches and Missions.

_____________________________________

	Abbreviated from Classification, Gradation and Awareness Chart of Levels and Certificates, February 1975 Edition, available on request from Hubbard Scientology Organizations or Missions listed in back pages.

THE AXIOMS OF S.O.P. 8-C

1: LOCATION

PRE-LOGIC: Theta orients objects in space and time.
AXIOM: In life experience space becomes beingness.
FORMULA I: Permitting the preclear to discover with certainty where people and things are not in the present, past and future recovers sufficient orientation to establish his knowledge and certainty of where he is and they are; the application of this is accomplished by negative orientation of beingness, havingness and doingness on each of eight dynamics in the present, past and future.

II: BODIES

AXIOM: In life experience energy becomes doingness.
AXIOM: Compulsive position precedes compulsive thinking.
AXIOM: That which changes the preclear in space can evaluate for him.
FORMULA II: Permit the preclear to discover that he handles bodies and allow him to handle bodies in mock-ups and actuality; and remedy his thirst for attention which he has received by contagion from bodies.

III: SPACE

PRE-LOGIC: Theta creates space and time and objects to locate in them.
DEFINITION: Space is a viewpoint of dimension.

AXIOM: Energy derives from imposition of space between terminals and a reduction and expansion of that space.

FORMULA III: Permit the preclear to regain his ability to create space and impose it upon terminals, to remove it from between terminals and to regain his security concerning the stability of MEST space.

IV: HAVINGNESS

AXIOM: In life experience matter becomes havingness.

OBSERVATION: To a thetan ANYTHING is better than nothing.

OBSERVATION: Any preclear is suffering from problems of too little havingness any any reduction of his existing energy, if not replaced, will cause him to drop in tone.

FORMULA IV: The remedy of problems of havingness is accomplished by creating an abundance of all things.

As the preclear has rendered automatic his desires and ability to create and destroy, and thus has placed havingness beyond his control, the Auditor should place in the control of the preclear his automaticities of havingness and unhavingness and permit him, on his own self- determinism, to balance his havingness.

V: TERMINALS

AXIOM: Space exists by reason of anchor points.

DEFINITION: An anchor point is any particle or mass or terminal.

AXIOM: Energy is derived from mass by fixing two terminals in proximity in space.

AXIOM: Self-determinism is related to the ability to impose space between terminals.

AXIOM: Cause is a potential source of flow.

AXIOM: Effect is a potential receipt of flow.

AXIOM: Communication is the duplication at the receipt point of that which emanated at a cause point.

AXIOM: Wrongness in terms of flow is inflow.

FORMULA V: The thetan is rehabilitated as to energy and terminals by remedying his postulates about outflow and inflow and drills relating to the outflow and inflow of energy according to the above axioms.

VI: SYMBOLIZATION

DEFINITION: A symbol is an idea fixed in energy and mobile in space.

FORMULA VI: The thetan who has been moved about by symbols is strengthened by mocking up and moving about and fixing in space ideas which have formerly moved him.

VII: BARRIERS

AXIOM: The MEST universe is a game consisting of barriers.

DEFINITION: A barrier is space, energy, object, obstacles, or time. 

FORMULA VII: Problems of barriers or their lack are resolved by contacting and penetrating, creating and destroying, validating and neglecting barriers by changing them or substituting others for them, by fixing and unfixing attention upon their somethingness and nothingness.

VIII: DUPLICATION

FUNDAMENTAL: The basic action of existence is duplication.

LOGIC: All operating principles of life may be derived from duplication.

AXIOM: Communication is as exact as it approaches duplication.

AXIOM: Unwillingness to be cause is monitored by unwillingness to be duplicated.

AXIOM: Unwillingness to be an effect is monitored by unwillingness to duplicate.

AXIOM: An inability to remain in a geographical position brings about an unwillingness to duplicate.

AXIOM: An enforced fixation in a geographical position brings about an unwillingness to duplicate.

AXIOM: Inability to duplicate on any dynamic is the primary degeneration of the thetan.
AXIOM: Perception depends upon duplication.

AXIOM: Communication depends upon duplication.

AXIOM: In the MEST universe, the single crime is duplication.

FORMULA VIII: The primary ability and willingness of the thetan to duplicate must be rehabilitated by handling desires, enforcements and inhibitions relating to it on all dynamics.

The Creation of Human Ability

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 5 MARCH 1971
Remimeo

C/S Series 25

THE FANTASTIC NEW HGC LINE
(A marvelous new C/S Auditor line has just
been piloted in for HGCs.)

In the new C/S line the Auditor, in his Admin time at the end of the day, or when he has no preclears, does Folder Error Summaries or Progress and Advance Programs for his pcs and does the C/S form for the Tech C/S as well as adds the day’s process and the length of the session and amount of Admin time on that folder to the inside front cover of the folder, with the process run and result.

If his programs and C/Ses are acceptable to the Tech C/S, the Auditor gets full Well Done Auditing Hour credit on his stat.

The Auditor logs his sessions for the day in the general HGC Auditor’s log and his Admin time is also logged.

This Admin time is subtracted from the bought hours of the pc where auditing is sold by the hour.

Where Auditors are so engaged and the new folder routing line is in use, this C/S form is used:

Full blank page.

Pc’s Name (Red)	Date

Auditor’s Name (Red)	Class of Auditor required next sess.

(Session Grade) left blank

Auditor’s comment (Red) or think about the case if he wishes.

The next C/S

1.	Blue

2.	Blue

3.	Blue

4.	Blue

Auditor Signature (Red)

The Auditor does not grade his own session. He leaves this blank.

The correctly Admined folder is then given to Tech Services which routes it (usually with the Auditor’s other folders for the day) to the C/S.

The C/S looks it over (it is HIS final responsibility for the case being run right).

The C/S looks to see if the Examiner form taken by the Examiner at session end F/Ned. If it did not he leaves the grade line blank as it is a No Grade session (see F/N and well done hours) as the Auditor gets no hour credit for the session. If the C/S and other Admin is ok he writes OK with his initial in the session grade space. If none of it is okay he leaves it blank and does the C/S form or programs completely new. In this last case he enters a subtract figure in his log for the auditing time for the week against that Auditor’s name.

If the Exam form F/Ned, but the Admin is not okay and the session actions were not okay the C/S writes “Well Done by Exams” on his own new C/S in its proper place and ignores the form and subtracts the Admin time in his book to subtract the Admin from the Auditor’s week’s stat.

If the session was not okay with no F/N at Exams yet the Admin and next C/S are ok, the Auditor loses the session time in the C/S but gets the Admin time credited to his week’s stat. The C/S subtracts the session time in his book, not the Admin time.

Of course, as we hope is usually the case, if the Auditor did the C/S, did a correct session, got an F/N at Exam and did the Admin and next C/S is correct, then the C/S marks “Very well done” in the blank space for session grade with his initial. After inspection, this would be the sole action of the C/S regarding that folder.

By the C/S writing in the session grade (Very well done, well done, okay, flunk, to cramming) the Auditor is receiving acknowledgement for his work and is not just acking himself.

THE NEW LINE

The Ideal Folder-C/S line can shift the number of well done hours from a ceiling of 250-300 to 600-800 with one C/S. No matter how many Auditors an org has, older lines put a 250-300 top ceiling on the org’s well done hours.

When hours could go above 600 due to the available Auditors (20 or 30), a new parallel line has to be manned by a new C/S, new D of P and another Examiner and more Tech Services personnel.

Despite how hard the C/S and anyone else in tech works, a line not so run will ceiling at about 250 hours, no matter how many Auditors are hired.

A C/S using the old lines can C/S for about 5 working Auditors only with the line running any old way. And even so will work himself half to death.

In trying to get pcs handled, Auditors will be added. The C/S will not be able to handle his job. The line, being faulty, gets pegged at about 250 hours no matter how hard the C/S and Admin people work.

With the same C/S and Tech Services people, and a correct new line, 24 to 30 Auditors will be kept busy at their 5 hours a day (given auditing rooms) and the stat will be able to rise to 600 to 800.

NEW SEQUENCE

1. 	Auditor picks up his pc folders and his pc schedule list at Tech Services at the start of his day from the LEAVING rack.
2. 	Tech Services (having a duplicate list) begins sending pcs to him (using Tech Pages).

3. 	The Auditor gives the session.

4. 	The Auditor leaves the folder in the Auditing room at session end and takes the pc to the Examiner.

5. 	The Examiner simply does the Exam form on a meter with no folder. He sends the Exam form (hand route) to Tech Services.

6. 	The Auditor returns at once to his auditing room and a Tech Page has a pc there waiting for him.

7. 	Having done all his pcs for the day, the Auditor carries his folders to the Auditor Admin Room.

8. 	Tech Services has placed the Exam forms in the Auditor Admin Room and sees they get into the Auditor’s basket and the folder.

9. 	The Auditor does the complete Admin of the session.

10. 	The Auditor does any program needed for future sessions.

11. 	The Auditor C/Ses the folder for the next session.

12. 	The Auditor marks in a box (2 columns) on a sheet stapled to the inside front cover the process, the Exam result, the session time and the Admin time he has just put in.

13. 	The Auditor hands his completed folders in to Tech Services.

14. 	Tech Services gets the folders to the C/S using a Folder Page who comes on late and works the C/S’s hours.

15. 	Fed the folders rapidly by the Folder Page who is standing in the C/S area, the C/S does his C/S work. If the Folder Page is fast, removing folders and putting the new one in, chasing up data and other bits for the C/S, the time of C/Sing even when done very carefully will be found to average 3 to 5 minutes a folder even when some require full programming (but not FESing). This makes a ceiling of about 100 folders (sessions) a day for the C/S, an output of 30 Auditors. Needless to say the C/S and the Auditors have to know their business and Qual Cramming is used extensively both for new material and for flubs both in auditing and C/Sing by Auditors.

16. 	The Folder Page gets the folders over to the D of P office preserving the piles per Auditor as much as possible.

The C/S posts the data he wants Auditors to know or do on the AUDITORS’ BOARD of the Auditors’ Admin Room. He turns in his Cramming Orders into the D of P basket. This finishes his actions.

Where there is a senior Review C/S there is a hot spur line from the C/S to the senior C/S and back to the C/S. This is not necessarily an instant line. It can be a 12 hour lag line. In orgs where a C/O or Exec Dir or Product Officer or Org Officer is also a very skilled C/S this hot line would probably be in. New tech in use, fantastic completions and utter dog cases nobody can make anything out of go on this senior C/S hot spur line. There are very few of these, only two or three a day in a very busy org. The senior C/S “does” these and sends them back to the C/S. They are then sent on as usual to the D of P.

17. 	The Director of Processing comes on duty very early. The C/Sed folders will all be there. The D of P has assignment master sheets that are kept up by the D of P.

The D of P does the day’s schedules, a list for each Auditor. The lists preferably have a few too many pcs on them.

The D of P can tell what Class of Auditor is required for the next session because the Auditor has marked it in in the upper right-hand corner of the C/S for the next session.

When the D of P has the lists done the folders are placed in the “leaving” rack of Tech Services and Tech Services, now up and about, is given the lists and gets to work on the scheduling board, moving the names about to agree with the lists.

Tech Services does any room shifts or handlings at this time.

18. 	The D of P now goes to the Auditor Admin Room and begins to muster Auditors from her muster list as they come in and gets them over to Tech Services.

19. 	A Cramming personnel will be in there trying to get any crammings scheduled.

20. 	Tech Services hands out folders (which are in neat piles for each Auditor) and schedules to the Auditors as they turn up and handles any arguments or shifts in sequence.

21. 	Tech Pages are on phones or running to round up pcs and get them going to sessions, which work continues all day.

22. 	The D of P interviews any hung-up or curious pcs or as requested by the C/S or gets new Auditors or keeps up Admin. This goes on until the C/S comes in when the DofP is off.

23. 	The Auditor picking up his folders begins the cycle all over again at ( 1 ) above.

ABOVE 600

When the well done hours go above 600 a week, A WHOLE NEW HGC is put in duplicating the first, with its own C/S, D of P, T/S, auditing rooms and Auditor Admin Room. It would be HGC Section Two or HGC 2 with the original being HGC 1 .

A special second Cramming would have to be provided in Qual for it.

At first they would share new hours and build up independently. More HGCs are added to the Department at each multiple 600 wd hours.

SENIORS

The two chief seniors in the area are the C/S (for tech) and the D of P (for Auditors and bodies).

It is the D of P who must see that Auditors exist and are on post.

It is Tech Services who sees pcs are rounded up and audited. The D of T/S is actually in charge of pcs and all folder files and all board keep-up work.

The D of P should have some tech training. The D of T/S need not have any. The C/S of course is the Tech Expert and should be an HSST.

If there are no Auditors it is the D of P’s neck.
If there are no C/Ses it is the C/S’s neck.

If there are no folders it is the D of T/S’s neck.

And if there are no auditing rooms it is the D of T/S’s neck.

If signed-up scheduled pcs don’t get to session it is the D of T/S’s neck.

If there are no NEW pcs it is the D of P’s neck who should begin to shoot Dissem Secs and Registrars and procure new pcs on a by-pass for the org.

From this a table of seniors and duties can be made.

CRAMMING

You will notice no pcs are sent to Review on this new line. Review actions are done in Tech as a patch-up in Tech. The Qual Sec is responsible for overall tech quality BUT DOES IT BY CRAMMING C/Ses or Auditors.

Thus Cramming is a busy street.

Cramming must be good, check-outs excellent.

If an Auditor doesn’t grasp a C/S he has received he gets help from Cramming.

Auditors new to the HGC are given a fast hard grooving in in Cramming or a Qual Interne Course. (New Auditors never audit until grooved in.)

Tech will be as good as the Cramming Officer can cram.

This line is grooved in by the HAS and kept in by Qual. Or if there is no Qual, it is kept in by the HAS who will find no Qual very embarrassing.

DUMMY RUN

The line should be dummy run by folders, “pcs” and Auditors until they understand it.

People are often totally unaware of lines and get very sloppy.

Thus this line has to be drilled hard on old and new tech personnel. All must know this exact line.

It is a good line.

Fully in, it raises the well done hours stat from 250 per week maximum at total overload to an easy 600 to 800.

Auditors must audit five hours a day, 25 minimum per week of well done hours for any bonus to be paid at all. In the SO they get no pay at all much less bonuses if short on their 25.

Tech Services and an unenergetic D of P or a bad Dissem Sec and Registrar set-up can cause a no pc situation. And often do unless pushed.

But counting FESes and Admin in on an Auditor’s wd time helps slack periods to even out. And one Auditor can FES and program folders for others or from files if he is left adrift and short-timed by the D of P or D of T/S or until the Tech Division forces the Dissem Div and Distribution Div to really get on the ball and wear their hats on pc flow.

PROCUREMENT

The D of P has always had new pc procurement responsibility when all else failed or even when it didn’t.

Old folders, for example, are a marvelous source of new auditing repairs and intensives. An FES done on an old folder and a letter to “come in and get audited before you fall apart” is excellent pc procurement, usually neglected by Registrars. Any procurement by a D of P is legitimate.

Auditors who have no pcs can write procurement letters and have for 20 years.

SUMMARY

This is a beautiful line. It has been piloted hard.

It will serve as well as it is checked out, drilled in and used.

This line is the key to affluence from pcs alone.

(But if the org isn’t training Auditors heavily, you’ll soon have no Auditors to be on it and the org will not gain its high income low cost cushion from training.)

This line is the answer to really getting auditing done in an area.

L. RON HUBBARD 
Founder 

LRH:nt.rd                                  	
Copyright © 1971                             	
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 23 MAY 1971R
Issue I
REVISED 4 DECEMBER 1974
Remimeo
Auditors
Supervisors	(Revision in this type style)
Students
Tech & Qual

Basic Auditing Series 1R

THE MAGIC OF THE COMMUNICATION CYCLE

From the LRH Tape 6 February 1964,
“Comm Cycle in Auditing”

If you look over communication you will find that the magic of communication is about the only thing that makes auditing work.

The Thetan in this universe has begun to consider himself mest and has begun to consider himself mass and the being that considers himself mass of course responds to the laws of electronics and the laws of Newton. He is actually incapable of generating very much or as-ising very much.

An individual considers himself mesty or massy and therefore he has to have a second terminal. A second terminal is required to discharge the energy.

Here we have two poles. We have an auditor and a pc and as long as the auditor audits and the pc replies we get an exchange of energy from the pc’s point of view.

Many auditors think they are being a second terminal to the degree that they pick up the somatics and illnesses of the pc. Actually there is no backflow of any kind that hits the auditor but if he is so convinced that he is mest he will turn on somatics in echo of the pc. Actually nothing hits the auditor, it has to be mocked up or envisioned by him.

You have set up in essence a two pole system and that will bring about an as-ising of mass.

It isn’t burning the mass, it is as-ising the mass and that’s why there is nothing hitting the auditor.

Now that is the essence of the situation. The magic involved in auditing is contained in the communication cycle of auditing. You see now you are handling the SMOOTH INTERCHANGE BETWEEN THESE TWO POLES.

When you look over the difficulties of auditing realize that you are handling simply the difficulties of the communication cycle and when you yourself as the auditor do not permit A SMOOTH FLOW BETWEEN YOU AS A TERMINAL AND THE PC AS A TERMINAL, AND THE PC AS A TERMINAL BACK TO YOU, you get a no as-ising of mass. So you don’t get TA action.

Part of the trick of course is what has to be as-ised and how do you go about it, but that we call technique—(what button has to be pressed). We find, oddly enough, if the auditor is actually capable of making the pc willing to talk to him, he wouldn’t have to hit a button to get tone arm action. (He cannot make the pc get tone arm action basically because a communication cycle doesn’t exist )

The person who is insisting continuously upon a new technique is neglecting the basic tool of his auditing which is the communication cycle of auditing.

When the communication cycle does not exist in an auditing session we get this horrible compounding of a felony of trying to get a technique to work but the technique cannot be administered because there is no communication cycle to administer it.

Basic auditing is called basic auditing  because it goes PRIOR to the technique.

A communication cycle must exist  before the technique can exist.

The fundamental entrance to the case is not on a level of the technique but is on a level of the communication cycle.

Communication is simply a familiarization process based on reach and withdraw.

When you speak to a pc you are reaching. When you cease to speak you are withdrawing. When he hears you, he’s at that moment a bit withdrawn but then he reaches toward you with the answer.

You’ll see him go into a withdraw while he thinks it all over. Then he reaches the reason. Now he will reach the auditor with the reason and he will say that was it.

You have made an exchange from the pc to the auditor and will see it reflect on the meter because that exchange now is giving an as-ising of energy.

IN THE ABSENCE OF THAT COMMUNICATION YOU DO NOT GET METER ACTION.

So THE FUNDAMENTAL OF AUDITING IS THE COMMUNICATION CYCLE. That’s  the fundamental of auditing and that is really the great  discovery of Dianetics and Scientology.

It’s such a simple discovery but you realize that nobody knew anything about it.

	L. RON HUBBARD 
	Founder 

LRH:nt.rd 
Copyright © 1971, 1974 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 23 MAY 1971 R
Remimeo	Issue II
Auditors	
Supervisors	REVISED 6 DECEMBER 1974
Students
Tech & Qual
Basic Auditing Series 2R

THE TWO PARTS OF AUDITING
From the LRH Tape 2 July 1964,
“O/W Modernised and Reviewed”

In order to do something for somebody you have to have a communication line to that person.

Communication lines depend upon reality and communication and affinity and where an individual is too demanding the affinity tends to break down slightly.

Processing goes in two stages.

	1. 	To get into communication with that which you are trying to process.

	2. 	Do something for him.

There is many a pc who will go around raving about his auditor, whose auditor has not done anything for  the pc. All that has happened is that a tremendous communication line has been established with the pc and this is so novel and so strange to the pc that he then considers that something miraculous has occurred.

Something miraculous has occurred but in this particular instance the auditor has totally neglected why he formed that communication line in the first place. He formed it in the first place to do something for the pc.

He very often mistakes the fact that he has formed a communication line, and the reaction on the pc for his having formed one, with having done  something for the pc.

There are two stages.

1. 	Form a communication line.

2. 	Do something for the pc.

Those are the two distinct stages. It is something like (1) Walking up to the bus, and (2) Driving off. If you don’t drive off you never go anyplace.

It is a very tricky and no small thing to be able to communicate to a human being who has never been communicated to before. This is quite remarkable, and is such a remarkable feat that it appears to be an end-all of Scientology to some.

But you see that’s just walking up to the bus. Now you have got to go someplace.

Any upset that the individual has is so poised, it is so delicately balanced, that it is difficult to maintain. /t is not difficult to get well. It is very hard to remain batty. A fellow has to work at it.

If your communication line is very good and very smooth and if your auditing discipline is perfect so you don’t upset this communication line and if you just made a foray of no more importance than saying something like—What are you doing that’s sensible and why is it sensible?—and kept your communication line up all the while and kept your affinity up with the pc all the while, did it with perfect discipline, you would see more aberration fall to pieces per square inch than you ever thought could exist.

Now that’s what I mean when I say do something for the pc.
You must audit well, get perfect discipline and get your communication cycle in. Don’t ARC Break the pc, let your cycles of action complete.

All of that is simply an entrance. You see, the discipline of Scientology makes it possible to do this, and one of the reasons why other fields of the mind never got anyplace and could never get near anybody was because they couldn’t communicate to anybody.

So that discipline is important.

That is the ladder that goes up to the door and if you can’t get to the door you can’t do anything.

The perfect discipline of which we speak, the perfect communication cycle, the perfect auditor presence, perfect meter reading—all of these things are just to get you in a state where you can do something for somebody.

So when you’re real slow picking up the discipline, real slow picking up keeping in the communication cycle, when you’re pokey on the subject you are still 9 miles from the ball. You’re not even attending yet.

What you want to be able to do is audit perfectly. By that we mean keep in a communication cycle, be able to approach the pc, be able to talk to the pc, and be able to maintain the ARC. Get the pc to give you answers to your questions. Be able to read a meter and get the reactions.

All of those things have to be awfully good because it’s very difficult to get a communication line in to somebody anyway. They all have to be present and they all have to be perfect. If they are all present and they are all perfect, then we can start to process somebody. THEN we can start to process somebody.

I’m giving you an entrance point here of, if all your cycles were perfect, if you were able to sit there and confront the pc and meter that pc and keep your auditing report and do all these multiple various things, and keep a pleasant smile on your face and not chop his communication, well then there is something you do with these things. It takes a process now.

We used to have it all backwards. We used to try and teach people what they could do for somebody. But they could never get in communication with him to do it, so therefore you had failures in processing.

The most elementary procedure would be—’’What do you think is sensible?”—or anything of that sort. The pc says, “Well, I think horses sleep in beds. That’s sensible. ‘‘ The auditor says, “Alright. Now why is that sensible?”  The pc says, “Well ... ah .... Hey! . . . That’s not sensible. That’s nuts!”’ You actually wouldn’t have to do anything more than that He’s cognited. You’ve flattened it. It’s so easy to do, but you keep looking for some magic.

Well, your magic is in getting into communication with the person. The rest is very easy to do, all you have to do is remain in communication with the person while you are doing this, and realize that these huge aberrations he’s got are poised with the most fantastically delicate balance on little pinheads. All you have to do is to phooph and these things crash.

Now if you’re not in communication with this person he doesn’t cognite. He takes it as an accusative action. He tries to justify thinking that way. He tries to make himself look good to you and tries to put on a public front of some kind or another. He tries to hold up his status.

Anytime I see a bunch of pcs around who want to jump happily to something else because sane people run on that and crazy people run on something else, and they never have to be run on the crazy one, I right away know their auditors are not in communication with them and that auditing discipline itself has broken down because the pc is trying to justify himself and trying to uphold his own status. So he must be defending himself against the auditor.

The auditor couldn’t possibly be in communication with him.

So we are right back to the fundamental of why didn’t the auditor get into comm with the pc in the first place.

You get into communication with the pc in the first place by doing proper Scientology discipline. That is not any trick. It goes off 1, 2, 3, 4.

You sit down and you start the session and you start handling the pc and his problems and that sort of thing and you DO IT BY COMPLETING YOUR COMMUNICATION CYCLES AND NOT CUTTING HIS COMMUNICATION—THE VERY THINGS YOU ARE TAUGHT IN THE TRs, and you find you are in communication with the person. Now you’ve got to do something for the person.

Unless, having gotten into communication, you do something for the person, you lose your communication line because the R-Factor of why you’re in communication with the pc breaks down. He doesn’t think you’re so good, and you go out of communication with him. That having happened, the person will be in a sort of status defensive and wonder why he is being processed.

On the other hand, if you have done something for the pc and he has had his cognition, and you try and go on and get more TA action out of the fact that “all horses sleep in beds”—you don’t get there as you’ve already flattened the process.

You can over-audit and you can under-audit.

If you don’t notice that one answer come your way, that indicates you have done something for the pc and if you keep him working on that same thing, your TA action will disappear, your pc will get resentful and you’ll lose your communication line.

He’s already had the cognition you see. You are now restimulating the pc. You have gotten your key-out destimulation factor—it has occurred right before your eyes. You have done something for the pc. One more mention of the subject and you’ve had it.

There are a lot of things you could do with the pc, without doing anything for him. You can turn on some very very handsome somatics on a pc at one time or another without turning them off either. You’ve got to do something for the pc, not to him.

Now you can be doing something (A), and the pc is doing (B), and you go on doing (A), while the pc is doing (B) then somewhere on down the line you wind up in a hell of a mess and you wonder what happened.

Well the pc never did what you said so you didn’t do anything for the pc. There was in actual fact no barrier to your willingness to do something for the pc but there must have been a tremendous barrier to your understanding of what was going on.

That you could ask (A), while the pc answered (B), in itself showed the auditor observation was very poor so therefore the auditor wasn‘t in communication with the pc.

So again the communication factor was out and once more we weren’t doing anything for the pc.

It requires of the auditor discipline to keep in his communication line. He has got to stay in communication with his pc. Those cycles have got to be perfect. He can’t be distracting the pc’s attention onto the TA, e.g. “I’m not getting any TA action now.” That’s not staying in communication with the pc—has nothing to do with it. You’re distracting the pc from his own zones and areas.

Don’t put the pc’s attention out of session. Keep him going and keep that communication line in. And the next requirement is to do something productive for the pc using the communication line.

	L. RON HUBBARD
	Founder

LRH:nt.jh
Copyright © 1971, 1974	
by L. Ron Hubbard	
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 23 MAY 1971
Issue III
Reissued 1 December 1974
Remimeo
Auditors	CANCELS
Supervisors	BTB OF 23 MAY 1971
Students	Issue III
Tech & Qual	SAME TITLE

Basic Auditing Series 3

THE THREE IMPORTANT COMMUNICATION LINES

From the LRH Tape 15 Oct 63,
“Essentials of Auditing”

When you are sitting in an auditing session what are the 3 important communication lines and what is their order of importance?

1. 	The first is the Pc’s line to his bank. The Itsa Maker line.

2. 	The second is the Pc’s line to the Auditor. The Itsa line.

3. 	The third is the Auditor’s line to the Pc. The What’s-it line.

Now the definition, “Willing to talk to the Auditor”, is very easy to interpret as “Talking to the Auditor”. So the Auditor cuts the line the Pc has to the bank in order to get the Pc to talk, because “It’s the Itsa line that blows the charge,” he says.

So the Auditor cuts the Pc’s communication line with his bank in order to bring about an Itsa line—and then he wonders why he gets no TA action and why the Pc ARC Breaks.

This cut communication line is not perceivable to the naked eye. It’s hidden because it’s from the Pc—a Thetan unseen by the Auditor—to the Pc’s bank—unseen by the Auditor.

The Auditor is simply there to use the What’s-it line in order to get the Pc to confront his bank. The charge blows off it to the degree that it’s confronted and this is represented by the Itsa line.

The Itsa line is a report on what has been as-ised, that gives it its flow.

The sequence of use of these lines in an auditing cycle is 3, 1, and then 2.

Where the Auditor neglects this hidden line from the Pc to the Pc’s bank, where he doesn’t understand that hidden line and can’t integrate it or do anything with it he is going to fail.

LRH:nt.ts.rd 	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1971, 1974 	Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

Remimeo	HCO BULLETIN OF 23 MAY 1971R
Auditors	Issue IV
Supervisors	REVISED 4 DECEMBER 1974
Students
Tech & Qual
Basic Auditing Series 4R

COMMUNICATION CYCLES WITHIN THE
AUDITING CYCLE

(Taken from the LRH Tape, “Comm Cycles
in Auditing”, 25 July 1963)

The difficulty that an Auditor gets into is normally found in his own auditing cycle.

There are basically two communication cycles between the Auditor and the Pc that make up the auditing cycle.

They are cause, distance, effect with the Auditor at cause and the Pc at effect, and cause, distance, effect with the Pc at cause and the Auditor at effect.

	Cause ----------------------	Distance  ----------------------> Effect

Auditor                                                  			Pc

	Effect  <--------------------  Distance ------------------------  Cause

These are completely distinct one from the other. The only thing that connects them and makes an auditing cycle, is the fact that the Auditor, on his communication cycle, has calculatingly restimulated something in the Pc which is then discharged by the Pc’s communication cycle.

What the Auditor has said has caused a restimulation and then the Pc needs to answer the question to get rid of the restimulation.

If the Pc does not answer the question he doesn’t get rid of the restimulation. That is the game that is being played in an auditing cycle and that is the entirety of the game. (Some auditing breaks down because the Auditor is unwilling to restimulate the Pc.)

There is a little extra communication cycle on here. The Auditor says, “Thank you” and you have this as the acknowledgement cycle.

	C -------------------------   Command  --------------------> 	E

Auditor    	E  <---------------------------Answer------------------------ 	C                 Pc

	E  ---------------------  Acknowledgement  --------------->	E

Now there are some little inner cycles that can throw you off and make you think that there are some other things to the auditing cycle. There is another little shadow cycle: it is the observation of “Has the Pc received the auditing command?” This is such a tiny “cause” that nearly all Auditors who are having any trouble finding out what’s going on with the Pc are missing this one. “Does he receive it?” Actually there is another cause in here and you’re missing that one when you’re not perceiving the Pc.

You can tell by looking at the Pc that he didn’t hear or understand what you’d said or that he was doing something peculiar with the command he was receiving. Whatever that message is in response, it rides on this line.

		Did Pc receive,
	e <------------------------understand and-------------------	c
		answer command?

	C -------------------------   Command  --------------------> 	E

Auditor    	E  <---------------------------Answer------------------------ 	C                 Pc

	E  ---------------------  Acknowledgement  --------------->	E

An Auditor who isn’t watching a Pc at all never notices a Pc who isn’t receiving or understanding the auditing command. Then all of a sudden somewhere along the line there is an ARC Break and then we do assessments and we patch up the session and all kinds of things go wrong.

Well, they actually needn’t ever have gone wrong in the first place if this line had been in. What is the Pc doing completely aside from answering? Well, what he is doing is this other little sub-cause, distance, effect line.

Another of these tiny lines is the cause, distance, effect line of—”Is the Pc ready to receive an auditing command?”

This is the Pc causing and it rides up the line across distance, is received at the Auditor and the Auditor perceives that the Pc is doing something else.

It is an important one and you find that Auditors goof that one very often; the Pc’s attention is still on a prior action.

Now here’s another one—”Has the Pc received the acknowledgement?” Sometimes you violate this one. You have been acknowledging but you’ve never seen that he didn’t receive the acknowledgement. That perception has another little tiny one in it that actually comes on this line; it is—’’Has the Pc answered everything?’’

The Auditor is watching the Pc and the Auditor sees that the Pc has not said all that the Pc is going to say. You sometimes get into trouble with Pcs that way. Everything at “cause” hasn’t moved on down the line to effect and you haven’t perceived all of the “effect” and you go into the acknowledgement one before this line has completed itself.

That’s chopping the Pc’s communication. You didn’t let the communication cycle flow to its complete end. The acknowledgement takes place and of course it can’t go through as it’s an inflowing line and it jams right there on the Pc’s incomplete outflowing answer line.

		Is Pc ready
	e <----------------------for the command?-------------------	c
		
		Did Pc receive,
	e <------------------------understand and-------------------	c
		answer command?

	C -------------------------   Command  --------------------> 	E

Auditor    	E  <---------------------------Answer------------------------ 	C                 Pc

	E  ---------------------  Acknowledgement  --------------->	E

So if you want to break it all down, there are six communication cycles which make up one auditing cycle. Six, not more than six unless you start running into trouble. If you violate one of these six communication lines you of course are going to get into trouble which causes a mish-mash of one kind or another.

There is another communication cycle inside the auditing cycle and that is at the point of the Pc. It’s a little additional one and it’s between the Pc and himself. This is him talking to him. You’re listening to the inside of his skull when you’re examining it. /t actually can be multiple as it depends upon the complications of the mind.

This happens to be the least important of all the actions except when it isn’t being done. And of course it’s the hardest to detect when it isn’t being done. Pc says: “Yes. ‘‘ Now what has the Pc said yes to? And sometimes you are insufficiently curious. And that in essence is this internal perception of line. It includes this cause, distance, effect backflash here—’’Is the Pc answering the command I gave him?’’

So with this, there are seven communication cycles involved in an auditing cycle. It is a multiple cycle.

A communication cycle consists of just cause, distance, effect with intention, attention, duplication and understanding. How many of these are there in one auditing cycle? You’d have to answer that with how many principal ones there are because some auditing cycles contain a few more. If a Pc indicates that he didn’t get the command (cause, distance, effect), the Auditor would give a repeat of it (cause, distance, effect) and that would add 2 more communication cycles to the auditing cycle, so you’ve got 9—because there was a flub. So anything unusual that happens in a session adds to the number of communication cycles in the auditing cycle, but they are still all part of the auditing cycle.

Repetitive commands as an auditing cycle, is doing the same cycle over and over again.

Now there is a completely different cycle inside the same pattern. The Pc is going to originate and it’s got nothing to do with the auditing cycle. The only thing they have in common is that they both use communication cycles. But this is brand new. The Pc says something that is not germane to what the Auditor is saying or doing and you actually have to be alert for this happening at any time and the way to prepare for it is just to realize that it can happen at any time and just go into the drill that handles it. Don’t get it confused with the drill that you have as an auditing cycle. Consider it its own drill. You shift gears into this drill when the pc does something unexpected.

And, by the way, this handles such a thing as the Pc originates by throwing down the cans. That’s still an origin. It has nothing to do with the auditing cycle. Maybe the auditing cycle went to pieces and this origination cycle came in. Well, the auditing cycle can’t complete because this origin cycle is now here. That doesn’t mean that this origin has precedence or dominance but it can start and take place and have to be finished off before the auditing cycle can resume.

So this is an interruptive cycle and it is cause, distance, effect. The Pc causes something. The Auditor now has to originate as the Auditor has to understand what the Pc is talking about—and then acknowledge. And to the degree that it is hard to understand, you have the cause, distance, effect of the Auditor trying to clarify this thing; and every time he asks a question, he’s got a new communication cycle.
You can’t put a machine action at that point because the thing has to be understood. And this must be done in such a way that the Pc isn’t merely repeating his same origination or the Pc will go frantic. He’ll go frantic because he can’t get off that line—he’s stuck in time and it really upsets him. So the Auditor has to be able to understand what the devil the Pc is talking about. And there’s really no substitute for simply trying to understand it.

There is a little line where the Pc indicates he is going to say something. This is a line (cause, distance, effect) that comes  before the origination takes place so you don’t run into a jam and you don’t give the auditing command. The effect at the Auditor’s point is to shut up and let him. There can be another little line (cause, distance, effect) where the Auditor indicates he is listening. Then there is the origination, the Auditor’s acknowledgement of it and then there is the perception of the fact that the Pc received the acknowledgement.

That’s your origination cycle.

An Auditor should draw all these communication cycles out on a scrap of paper. Just take a look at all these things; mock up a session and all of a sudden it will become very straight how these things are and you won’t have a couple of them jammed up. What’s mainly wrong with your auditing cycle is that you have confused a couple of communication cycles to such a degree that you don’t differentiate that they exist. That’s why you sometimes chop a Pc who is trying to answer the question.

You know whether the Pc has answered the question or not. How did you know? Even if it’s telepathy it’s cause, distance, effect. It doesn’t matter how that communication took place, you know whether he’s answered the command by a communication cycle. I don’t care how you sense this.

If you are nervy on the subject of handling the basic tool of auditing and if that’s giving you trouble (and if you get into trouble by suddenly breaking it down and analyzing it) then it should be broken down and analyzed at a time when you’re auditing something nice and simple.

I’ve given you a general pattern for an auditing cycle; maybe in working it over you can find a couple of extra communication cycles in the thing. But they are all there and if you made someone go through each one painstakingly, you would find out where his auditing cycle is jammed up. It isn’t necessarily jammed up on his ability to say “Thank you”. It may very  well be jammed up in another quarter.

	L. RON HUBBARD 
	Founder 

LRH:nt jh 
Copyright ©1971, 1974 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 23 MAY 1971 R
Remimeo	Issue V
Auditors	REVISED 29 NOVEMBER 1974
Supervisors	(Revision in this type style)
Tech & Qual
Students
Basic Auditing Series 5R

THE COMMUNICATION CYCLE IN AUDITING

From the LRH tape 6 Feb 64,
“Comm Cycle in Auditing”

The ease with which you can handle a communication cycle depends on your ability to observe what  the pc is doing.

We have to add to the simplicity of the communication cycle OBNOSIS (observation of the obvious).

Your inspection of what you are doing should have ended with your training. Thereafter it should be taken up exclusively with the observation of what the pc is doing or is not doing.

Your handling of a communication cycle ought to be so instinctive and so good that you’re never worried about what you do now.

The time for you to get all this fixed up is in training. If you know your communication cycle is good you haven’t any longer got to be upset about whether you’re doing it right or not. You know yours is good, so you don’t worry about it any more.

In actual auditing, the communication cycle that you watch is the pc’s. Your business is the communication cycle and responses of the pc.

This is what makes the auditor who can crack any case and when absent you have an auditor who couldn’t crack an egg if he stepped on it.

This is the difference, it’s whether or not this auditor can observe the communication cycle of the pc and repair its various lapses.

It’s so simple.

It simply consists of asking a question that the pc can answer, and then observing that the pc answers it, and when the pc has answered it, observing that the pc has completed the answer to it and is through answering it. Then give him the acknowledgement. Then give him something else to do. You can ask the same question or you can ask another question.

Asking the pc a question he can answer involves clearing the auditing command. You also ask it of the pc so that the pc can hear it and knows what he’s being asked.

When the pc answers the question be bright enough to know that the pc is answering that question and not some other question.

You have to develop a sensitivity—when did the pc finish answering what you’ve asked. You can tell when the pc has finished. It’s a piece of knowingness. He looks like he’s finished and he feels like he’s finished. It’s part sense; it’s part his vocal intonation; but it’s an instinct that you develop. You know he’s finished.

Then knowing he’s finished answering you tell him he’s finished with an acknowledgement, OK, Good, etc. It’s like pointing out the by-passed charge to the pc. Like—”You have now found and located the by-passed charge in answer to the question and you have said it.” That’s the magic of acknowledgement.

If you don’t have that sensitivity for when the pc is finished answering—he answers, gets nothing from you, you sit there and look at him, his social machinery goes into action, he gets onto self auditing and you get no TA action.

The degree of stop you put on your acknowledgement is also your good sense because you can acknowledge a pc so hard that you finish the session right there.

It’s all very well to do this sort of thing in training and it’s forgivable, but NOT in an auditing session.

Get your own communication cycle sufficiently well repaired that you don’t have to worry about it after training.

                                        	L. RON HUBBARD
                                        	Founder

LRH:nt.rd jh 
Copyright © 1971, 1974 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 23 MAY 1971
Issue VI
Remimeo
Auditors
Supervisors
Students	HCOB of 17 Oct 1962, Reissued verbatim as
Tech & Qual

Basic Auditing Series 6

AUDITOR FAILURE TO UNDERSTAND

If a pc says something and the auditor fails to understand what the pc said or meant, the correct response is:

“I did not (hear you) (understand what was said) (get that last).”

To do anything else is not only bad form, it can amount to a heavy ARC Break.

INVALIDATION

To say “You did not speak loud enough_____” or any other use of “you” is an invalidation.

The pc is also thrown out of session by having responsibility hung on him or her.

The Auditor is responsible for the session. Therefore the auditor has to assume responsibility for all comm breakdowns in it.

EVALUATION

Far more serious than Invalidation above, is the accidental evaluation which may occur when the auditor repeats what the pc said.

NEVER repeat anything a pc says after him, no matter why.

Repeating not only does not show the pc you heard but makes him feel you’re a circuit.

The highest advance of 19th Century Psychology was a machine to drive people crazy. All it did was repeat after the person everything the person said.

Children also do this to annoy.

But that isn’t the main reason you do not repeat what the pc said after the pc. If you say it wrong the pc is thrown into heavy protest. The pc must correct the wrongness and hangs up right there. It may take an hour to dig the pc out of it.

Further, don’t gesture to find out. To say, pointing, “You mean this item, then,” is not only an evaluation but a nearly hypnotic command, and the pc feels he must reject very strongly.

Don’t tell the pc what the pc said and don’t gesture to find what the pc meant.
Just get the pc to say it again or get the pc to point it out again. That’s the correct action.

DRIVING IN ANCHOR POINTS

Also, do not shove things at a pc or throw things to a pc. Don’t gesture toward a pc. It drives in anchor points and makes the pc reject the auditor.

ROCK SLAMMER

The reason a person who Rock Slams on Scientology or auditors or the like can’t audit well is that they are wary of a pc and feel they must repeat after the pc, correct the pc or gesture toward the pc.

But Rock Slammer or not, any new auditor may fall into these bad habits and they should be broken fast.

SUMMARY

A very high percentage of ARC Breaks occur because of a failure to understand the pc.

Don’t prove you  didn’t with gestures or erroneous repeats.

Just audit, please.

                                        	L. RON HUBBARD
                                        	Founder

LRH:nt.rd 
Copyright © 1962, 1971 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 23 MAY 1971
Issue VII
Remimeo
Supervisors	HCOB of 7 Apr AD 15, Reissued verbatim as
Students
Tech & Qual	
Basic Auditing Series 7

PREMATURE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Here’s a new  discovery. Imagine my making one on the Comm Formula after all these years.

Do people ever explain to you long after you have understood?

Do people get cross with you when they are trying to tell you something?

If so, you are suffering from Premature Acknowledgement.

Like body odor and bad breath, it is not conducive to social happiness. But you don’t use Lifebuoy soap or Listerine to cure it, you use a proper comm formula.

When you “coax” a person to talk after he has begun with a nod or a low “yes” you ack, make him forget, then make him believe you haven’t got it and then make him tell you at GREAT length. He feels bad and doesn’t cognite and may ARC Break.

Try it out. Have somebody tell you about something and then encourage before he has completely told you all.

THAT’S why pcs Itsa on and on and on and on with no gain. The auditor prematurely acknowledged. THAT’S why pcs get cross “for no reason”. The auditor has prematurely and unwittingly acknowledged. THAT’S why one feels dull when talking to certain people. They prematurely acknowledge. That’s why one thinks another is stupid—that person prematurely acknowledges.

The quickest way to become a social pariah (dog) is to prematurely acknowledge. One can do it in many ways.

The quickest way to start the longest conversation is to prematurely acknowledge for the person believes he has not been understood and so begins to explain at greater and greater length.

So this was the hidden ARC Break maker, the cognition wrecker, the stupidifier, the Itsa prolonger in sessions.

And why some people believe others are stupid or don’t understand.

Any habit of agreeable noises and nods can be mistaken for acknowledgement, ends cycle on the speaker, causes him to forget, feel dull, believe the listener is stupid, get cross, get exhausted explaining and ARC Break. The missed withhold is inadvertent. One didn’t get a chance to say what one was going to say because one was stopped by premature acknowledgement. Result, missed w/h in the speaker, with all its consequences.

This can be counted on to make you feel frightened of being “agreeable with noises or gestures” for a bit and then you’ll get it straight.

What a piece of tech to remain incompletely explained. Fair scares one it does. And in the Comm Formula too!

LRH:nt.rd	L. RON HUBBARD 
Copyright © 1965,1971                          	Founder 
by L. Ron Hubbard                             
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 5 FEBRUARY 1966
Remimeo
Auditors	Issue II
Supervisors
Students
Tech & Qual	Reissued 23 May 71 verbatim as

Basic Auditing Series 8

“LETTING THE PC ITSA”
THE PROPERLY TRAINED AUDITOR

The most painful thing I ever hope to see is an auditor “letting a pc Itsa”.

I have seen auditors let a pc talk and talk and talk and talk and run down and talk and run down and talk again until one wondered where if anywhere that auditor had been trained.

In the first place such an auditor could not know the meaning of the word ITSA.

The word means “It is a ........”

Now how an auditor letting a pc talk believes he is getting a pc to spot what IT is is quite beyond me.

This pc has been talking all his life. He isn’t well. Analysts had people talk for five years and they seldom got well.

So how is it supposed to happen today that a pc, let talk enough, will get well.

It won’t.

The auditor does not know the very basics of auditing skills. That’s all. These are the TRs.

An auditor who can’t do his TRs can’t audit. Period.

Instead he says he is “letting the pc Itsa”.

If by this he means he is letting the pc drive all over the road and in both ditches, then this isn’t auditing.

In auditing an auditor guides. He gives the pc something to answer. When the pc
answers the pc has said “IT IS A ..	“ and that’s Itsa.

If the pc answers and the auditor acknowledges too soon the pc tends to go into an anxiety—he has been chopped. So he talks more than he wanted.

If the pc answers and the auditor does not acknowledge, then the pc talks on and on, hoping for an acknowledgement that doesn’t come, “runs dry”, tries again, etc.

So premature or late-or-never acks result in the same thing—the pc running on and on and on.

And they call it “letting the pc Itsa”. Bah! If a pc talks too much in session he either is getting cut off too fast by the auditor or hasn’t got an auditor at all. It isn’t
“Itsa”. It’s lousy TRs. (The one single exception is the pc who had years in analysis but even he begins to get better with proper TRs used on him.)

The proper cure is to drill the auditor until the auditor realizes:

1. 	The auditor  asks the questions.

2. 	The pc says what is the answer, “It’s a ........”

3. 	The auditor acks when the pc has said it to the pc’s satisfaction and

4. 	The auditor acks when the pc has finished saying “It’s a .......”

And that’s Itsa.

Scientology auditing is a precision skill, not a gag blop goo slup guck blah.

1. 	The auditor wants to know ........

2. 	The pc says it is ........

1. 2. 1. 2. 1. 2. etc.

TECH SAVVY

Now an auditor who doesn’t know his technology about the mind and his processes of course never knows what to ask. So he or she simply sits like a lump of sacking hoping the pc will say something that makes the pc feel better.

A sure sign that an auditor doesn’t know an engram from a cow about processes is seeing a pc “Itsa” on and on and on.

In Scientology we do know what the mind is, what a being is, what goes wrong in the mind and how to correct it.

We aren’t psychoanalysts or psychiatrists or Harley Street witch doctors. We do know.

The data about beings and life is there in Scientology to be learned.

It isn’t “our idea” of how things are, or “our opinion of” ....

Scientology is a precision subject. It has axioms. Like geometry. Two equilateral triangles aren’t similar because Euclid said so. They’re similar because they are. If you don’t believe it, look at them.

There isn’t a single datum in Scientology that can’t be proven as precisely as teacups are teacups and not saucepans.

Now if we get a person fresh out of the study of “the mystical metaphysics of Cuffbah” he’s going to have trouble. His pcs are going to “Itsa” their heads off and never get well or better or anything. Because that person doesn’t know Scientology but thinks it’s all imprecise opinion.

The news about Scientology is that it put the study of the mind into the precise exact sciences. If one doesn’t know that, one’s pcs “Itsa” by the hour for one doesn’t know what he is handling that he is calling “a pc”.

By my definition, an auditor is a real auditor when his or her pcs DON’T overtalk or undertalk but answer the auditing question and happily now and then originate.
So how to tell an auditor, how to determine if you have trained one at last, is DO HIS PCS ANSWER UP OR DO THEY TALK ON AND ON.

If I had an auditor in an HGC whose pcs yapped and yapped and ran dry and yapped while the auditor just sat there like a Chinese pilot frozen on the controls, I would do the following to that “auditor”:

1. 	Remedy A, Book of Case Remedies.

2. 	Remedy B, Book of Case Remedies.

3. 	Disagreements with Scientology, technology and orgs and Scientology personalities all found and traced to basic and blown.

4. 	A grind study assignment of the Scientology Axioms until the “auditor” could DO THEM IN CLAY.

5. 	A memorization of the Logics, Qs (Prelogics) and Axioms of Dianetics and Scientology.

6. 	TRs 0 to 4 until they ran out of his or her ears.

7. 	Trs 5 to 9.

8. 	Op Pro by Dup until FLAT.

9. 	A hard long study of the Meter.

10. 	The ARC triangle and other scales.

11. 	The Processes of Level 0.

12. 	Some wins.

And I’d have an auditor. I’d have one that could make a Grade Zero Release every time.

And it’s lack of the above that causes an “auditor” to say “I let the pc Itsa” with the pc talking on and on and on.

Scientology is the breakthrough that made the indefinite subject of Philosophy into a precision tool.

And pcs get well and go Release when it is applied.

                                        	L. RON HUBBARD
                                        	Founder

LRH:nt jh 
Copyright © 1966, 1971 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 23 MAY 1971
Remimeo	Issue X
Auditors
Supervisors	HCO P/L of 1 July 1965 Issue II
Tech & Qual	Reissued verbatim as

Basic Auditing Series 9

COMM CYCLE ADDITIVES

There are no  additives permitted on the Auditing Comm Cycle.

Example: 	Getting the pc to state the problem after the pc has said what the problem is.
Example: 	Asking a pc if that is the answer.
Example: 	Telling pc “it didn’t react” on the meter.
Example: 	Querying the answer.

This is the WORST kind of auditing.

Processes run best MUZZLED. By muzzled is meant using ONLY TR 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4 by the text.  A pc’s results will go to HELL on an additive comm cycle.

There are a hundred thousand tricks that could be added to the Auditing Comm Cycle. EVERY ONE of them is a GOOF. The ONLY time you ever ask for a repeat is when you couldn’t hear it.

Since 1950, I’ve known that all auditors talk too much in a session. The maximum talk is the standard model session and the TR 0 to 4 Auditing Comm Cycle ONLY.

It is a serious matter to get a pc to “clarify his answer”. It is in fact an Ethics matter and if done habitually is a Suppressive Act, for it will wipe out all gains.

There are mannerism additives also.

Example: Waiting for the pc to look at you before you give the next command. (Pcs who won’t look at you are ARC Broken. You don’t then twist this to mean the pc has to look at you before you give the next command.)

Example: 	A lifted eyebrow at an answer.
Example: 	A questioning sort of ack.

The Whole Message is

GOOD AUDITING OCCURS WHEN THE COMM CYCLE ALONE IS USED AND IS MUZZLED.

Additives on the Auditing Comm Cycle are ANY ACTION, STATEMENT, QUESTION OR EXPRESSION GIVEN IN ADDITION TO TRs 0-4.

They are Gross Auditing Errors.

And should be regarded as such.

Auditors who add to the Auditing Comm Cycle never make Releases.

So, that’s Suppressive.

Don’t do it!

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH:nt.rd	
Copyright © 1965, 1971	
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 23 MAY 1971 R
Issue VIII
REVISED 4 DECEMBER 1974
Remimeo
Auditors
Students
Tech & Qual	     
Basic Auditing Series 10R

RECOGNITION OF RIGHTNESS OF THE BEING

Taken from the LRH Tape
“Good Indicators”, 7 January 1964

An auditor’s tendency is to look for wrongnesses. He is always trying to find something wrong with the pc. That’s the nature of Scientology; we assume that there is something wrong with somebody otherwise he wouldn’t be here and be dead in his head, and he would be capable of  doing a great deal more than he is doing at the particular moment.

An individual is basically and routinely good, capable of many actions and considerable power.

In the state of a Free Thetan or Native State he is a far more powerful individual than when he’s been complicated up.

It’s the idea of the additive data to the Thetan. Try to give somebody something he doesn’t want and you are going to overthrow his power of choice. His power of choice is the only thing that he had to begin with, which gave him power, capability and anything else and that power of choice has been consistently and continuously overthrown by giving him things he didn’t want and taking away from him things he didn’t want to get rid of back and forth. You get the individual pretty overwhelmed and he goes down in power.

What happened to him actually is he solved something that didn’t need solving. There was something he couldn’t confront so he solved it and he fixed the solution.

Anytime you fix these solutions, for ever and ever you put the individual down grade. An individual becomes aberrated by additives. His experiences in this universe are usually calculated to degrade and depower him. Now all you have to do is pick up all of these  criss-crosses and you return him to power.

Man is an added-to being and everything that has been added to him has decreased his ability to cope. When you add something to the Being he gets worse.

We are in the business of deleting wrongnesses from the individual.

Even the Freudian Analyst realized that some additive had been added that should be deleted. So the idea of deleting something to bring about a recovery is not new with us.

Because we are in the business of deleting wrongnesses from the individual we seldom look at rightnesses and that’s what’s wrong with most auditors. They are so anxious to find the wrongness—and quite properly—and they never really look at the rightness. If they don’t look at the rightnesses that are present, then they aren’t appreciating the degrees of truth that are present that can be promoted into more truth.
In other words they are starting at a level of no truth present all the time so of course they never make any forward progress.

You must realize that there must be truth present and that this truth must be recognized and that this is hand-in-glove a part of auditing—the recognition of the fact that truth is present.

If you only look for wrongnesses  and only recognize wrongnesses  then you will never be able to pull anything up a gradient because you won’t think you have any rightnesses  to work with. It just all looks wrong to you.

You have to be able  to look at the wrongnesses in order to right them but we also have to be able to look at the rightnesses in order to increase them.

We are only trying to find wrongnesses in order to increase rightnesses, and that’s very important. If you have no rightnesses present in a session you will never be able to make any progress of any kind. Progress is built on a gradient scale of rightnesses by which you delete wrongnesses and they drop and fall away.

Therefore, Processing is an action by which wrongnesses can be deleted from the case to the degree that rightnesses are present in the session. You cannot take a case that doesn’t have any rightness present and delete a wrongness. So you have to realize that there are rightnesses present and then you increase those rightnesses That makes it possible for you to pick up the wrongnesses and that’s what auditing consists of.

Auditing is a contest of maintaining rightnesses so that we can delete wrongnesses. If you keep on deleting wrongnesses, all the while maintaining and increasing the rightnesses you eventually wind up with a very right being. You are trying to get a right being, therefore if you don’t continually encourage right beingness you never wind up with a right being.

You must learn to observe an auditing session. You want your pc to wind up in a right state—in a more native, more capable, less overwhelmed, higher power of choice sort of state. You want him to wind up with more rightnesses.

Therefore, if you audit so that you do not encourage and increase rightnesses then you won’t wind up with a right pc.

The degree of rightness you have present must exceed the wrongness you are going to pick up. It’s a proportional action. If you’ve got as much wrongness in a session as you’ve got rightness you’re not riding on any cushion. It makes a very difficult job of auditing. If you want to pick up this little wrongness, you have to have rightnesses present which are big enough to engulf it. That makes easy auditing.

If the rightnesses in the session are very minor and the problem is a tiny one, there isn’t enough rightness in the session to handle the problem and the pc cannot erase it.

THE PC’S ABILITY TO AS-IS OR ERASE IN A SESSION IS DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL TO THE NUMBER OF GOOD INDICATORS PRESENT IN THE SESSION.

And his inability to cope in a session rises proportionally to the number of bad indicators present in a session.

Any process has its own series of bad indicators. And the bad indicator moves in when the good indicator moves out So you have to have a primary knowledge of good indicators.

Don’t look for bad indicators on and on and on; you’ll drive the pc around the bend and suppress the good indicators What you want to do is know your good indicators for the level you are running so well that when one of them disappears out of the session, your ears go up and you instantly look for the bad indicator. Don’t look for the bad indicator until you see the vanishment of the good indicator. Otherwise you’re continually prowling around looking for wrongnesses in a session and you keep a pc very upset and you get no auditing done of any kind whatsoever.

Remember this next time you see a pc start to bog and drag and flounder one way or the other. You’ve got to get the pc’s good indicators back in before you can get the pc to handle what you want him to handle.

What influences the attitude of the pc is an ARC Break (that of course is influenced earlier by the auditor’s behavior), or the pc has an overt on the auditor or the pc has a missed withhold.

An auditor who never gets in and finds out what is wrong in the session—the reasonable auditor—messes up pcs like mad.

If all the good indicators are present the auditor knows he is doing a good job of auditing.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH: nt .rd 	 
Copyright ©1971, 1974 	
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 23 MAY 1971
Issue IX
Remimeo
Auditors
Supervisors
Students	Basic Auditing Series 11
Tech and Qual Staff
Checksheets of all courses
teaching metering
METERING

One does NOT tell the pc anything about the meter or its reads ever, except to indicate an F/N.

Steering a pc with “That—That—That” on something reading is allowable. But that isn’t putting attention on the meter but on his bank.

Definition of “In Session” is “Pc interested in own case and willing to talk to the auditor”.

Saying “That reads”, “That didn’t read”, “That blew down” is illegal. It is no substitute for TR 2. It violates the In Session definition by putting pc’s attention on the meter and can make him very unwilling to talk to the auditor!

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH:act.rd	
Copyright © 1971	
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 19 JUNE 1971
Issue II
Remimeo
C/S Series 46

DECLARES

It is the C/S’s responsibility that a pc or Pre OT is sent to Declare?

This is not an Admin point I’m making. It is a technical point.

Every so often a pc is found hung up in not having declared and attested the state attained.

A Declare Completes his cycle of action and is a vital part of the action.

One never forces or feeds one to the pc. I recall one org where the entire tech and income structure crashed, the C/O and several personnel had to be removed because they were forcing “clear cogs” on their Dianetic pcs who hadn’t had them (and then telling them they couldn’t be audited further on Scientology) (Connie Broadbent, ASHO, March ‘70).

So this goes 2 ways.

THE PC OR PRE OT WHO KNOWS HE MADE IT MUST BE SENT TO EXAMS AND C & A TO ATTEST.

THE PC OR PRE OT WHO HASN’T MADE IT MUST NEVER BE SENT TO EXAMS TO DECLARE AND ATTEST.

This gives us a third:

PCs AND PRE OTs WHO HAVEN’T MADE IT MUST BE HANDLED UNTIL THEY HAVE MADE THAT SPECIFIC DECLARE, EVEN THOUGH IT MEANS SIGNING UP FOR MORE AUDITING.

TRUTH is the keynote, the essence, the point here.

All the “PR” (slang for promotional talk) in the world will not supplant truth.

The pc KNOWS he made something. Therefore he must be sent to declare it whether it’s a standard grade or not!

The pc who hasn’t made it KNOWS he hasn’t and so when forced to declare or ordered to attest tends to cave in.

His concept of the validity of the org and honesty of Scientology depends on this, and really on this alone.

The correct declare or not declare decision of the C/S is a vital C/S action.

LRH:nt rd	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1971	Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 23 JULY 1971

Remimeo
(Corrected in this type style, 4 May 1972)

(Revises and replaces HCO B 15 Mar 71
of same title)

ASSISTS
A FLAG EXPERTISE SUBJECT
(Commands are the only change)

For a pc being run on a Touch Assist for handling something around the head (for example: teeth), go further even to the toes as the area extends through the nerve channel to the whole body. Right—left and also whole body. A head somatic also sticks in the spine.

Assist EP

All Assists are run to cognition and should F/N VGI at the Examiner.

Injury Rundown

On an injury, after the Touch Assist, a Contact Assist and then an L1C on the injured member could be done. Usual Dianetic actions would follow as necessary.

Pc Running a Temperature

COMMANDS CORRECTED FROM EARLIER ISSUE.

A persistent temperature can be brought down by running the pc on Objective “Hold it still”.

This can be run on a two command basis.

VERSION A

For a pc running a temperature too ill for regular auditing, he should be given antibiotics and an assist type boost, not a major action like Dianetics.

This version would be run if the pc is far too ill to get up. The pc is run on a meter to Cog F/N VGIs.

1. 	2 command Repetitive Process alternate commands:

	a. 	Look around here and find something.

	b. 	Hold it still (until pc can or feels he can).

	Then (a) again.

	Then (b) again, etc.

	This will drop a fever.

2. 	2 WC How do you feel? Have you felt like this before? Earlier Similar to F/N VGIs.

VERSION A is NOT very lasting. It is for very ill pcs and very high temperatures.

VERSION B

This is true Objective “Hold it still” and is very lasting.

It is done on a pc who can, even with effort, walk around a room.

It is done OFF the meter to Cog, GIs. The pc then should at once be put on the meter and will be found to have an F/N. If no F/N on the meter the process is either (a) unflat or (b) overrun. If unflat it is continued, flattened off the meter and the same meter test follows. If overrun the re/ease point is rehabbed.

VERSION B Commands are:

(a) 	Look around here and find something.

(b) 	Walk over to it.

(c) 	With your hands, hold it still.

The three commands are given in (a) (b) (c) sequence one after the other, the pc executing each command and being acknowledged until the pc has a cognition and GIs. He is then checked on the meter.

A thermometer can be used to check temperature after the meter check for F/N. The temperature will be found to have subsided.

__________

Both A and B versions can be used on the same pc.

Let us say on Monday, A Version is used. Then on Tuesday if temperature has gone back up but pc is better B Version is then used.

__________

The temperature process is most effective on a low order persistent fever that goes on and on for days and even weeks. In such cases Version B would be used and the temperature would come down and stay down very nicely.

                                        	L. RON HUBBARD
                                        	Founder

LRH: sb.nt.rd 
Copyright © 1971, 1972 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 8 AUGUST 1971 
Remimeo

C/S Series 55

THE IVORY TOWER

It has been stated before that the Case Supervisor is most successful when he supervises in seclusion.

This is called the IVORY TOWER rule.

It comes from the practical experience that in C/Sing thousands of cases the only few mistakes I made (and repaired) were when I listened to the opinion of the auditor or saw the pc.

This can be quite fatal to a case’s progress.

The fantastic results I achieve as a C/S mainly stem from not permitting what I know of tech and cases to be clouded by “Human Emotion and Reaction” (a Scn Public Relations term) by others.

Part of a C/S’s duty is to get the case through it despite auditor opinions and flubs or the opinions of others.

A C/S has no political or personnel opinions. He can of course have his own opinions of the pc’s case. But he is the FRIEND of the pc even when being harsh.

Often the C/S, unseen by the pc, is sometimes never suspected but quite often adored by those for whom he C/Ses. One often sees this in success stories, “Thank you, thank you to my great auditor (name) and the C/S (name) and Ron.” Sometimes it’s only the auditor. But mos. pcs know the C/S is there.

This awareness is also a great trust and it is a trust that is earned by great results and is never betrayed.

To the majority of pcs, then, it is a trio—always in the same order—his auditor, his C/S and myself.

He trusts us. And we do our best for him.

We don’t change our actions, then, if he is a dope addict, a wife beater, a criminal, a degraded being or an upstat (one who has high statistics) and a sterling person.

When we are researching, C/Sing or auditing, we do our best for him.

We have nothing to do with whether his seniors like him or for that matter whether we like him.

It is our job. We hold it in trust.

In our hands is his future, his sanity, his immortality.

It depends on us whether he survives and lives a full life or whether he goes into limbo.

If we do our duty, when we know and do our jobs, he achieves everything. When we don’t, he is gone.

No priest or fancied idol has ever been endowed with more cause over the beingness of another than a C/S and his auditor. This isn’t my opinion or my feeling about it. It’s the way pcs look at it.

Actually one can’t really state the full actuality of it.

The pc is justified in trusting us when we keep up to date on our tech, know our job, take every care that a good job is done and do our duty.

AUDITOR OPINION

Some auditors develop overts and withholds on pc and color their auditing reports with critical remarks about a pc = more withholds.

A C/S who pays much attention to these opinions is foolish. When they get too bad on too many pcs, get the auditor’s overts and withholds pulled as he’ll begin to flub.

The Worksheet and What the pc said or did is important. The opinions aren’t.

An auditor has a right to refuse to audit certain pcs as long as he audits others. That’s as it should be.

But a lot of “dog cases” are just unsolved cases that can be solved. Some are very difficult, true, but the difficulty is finding the bug. Some pcs are rather wild in conduct. But they solve too.

So an auditor’s opinion is not a study of the case. Talking to an auditor about a case he is auditing is not of any technical value to a C/S.

Again, a case does not know what is wrong with it or it would as-is and wouldn’t be wrong. So talking to a case about his case is a waste of time for a C/S. Some write huge notes to a C/S. The only value in all this is to analyze whether it’s a hidden standard or an ARC Brk or a w/h or a PTS matter. TECHNICAL considerations are all that enter in looking over such.

EXECUTIVE opinion is the world’s worst source of data on a pc. No C/S should ever take what seniors say about a junior. It’s all Human Emotion and Reaction. It’s not tech.

FAMILY, husbands, wives, fathers, mothers, brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles are of little value to listen to about a case. The most they could give you would be a list of accidents or illness or time in a home. But beware, they may be worse off than the pc.

No. The C/S is the pc’s safest friend.

The pc trusts the C/S and the auditor. Or he wouldn’t sit still at all.

Sometimes he only trusts me. And that’s the time I have to trust you.

And I do.

LRH:nt.rd 	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1971 	Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 24 AUGUST 1971
Issue II

Remimeo
ASSISTS ADDITION

(Refers to HCO B 23 July 71 which revised
HCO B 15 Mar 71)

In running Version A and Version B of a Hold it Still temperature assist DO NOT RUN IT OVER OUT RUDS.

Often a pc is ill because his ruds in life are out.

The Temperature Assist will only fail if the pc had an In Life ARC Break, Present Time Problem or Withhold.

Sometimes these alone will change the temperature for the better.

Each rud of course must be taken Earlier Similar to F/N if no F/N on the first answer given to a rud.

So Add to Version A C/S at the start:

0. 	Fly all ruds.

And to Version B C/S at the start:

0. 	Fly all ruds.

These are done with the pc holding the cans.

The walkabout version is done off the cans but checked.

Overrun is rehabbed.

If no rehab then flatten by further running.

When the pc off the cans in Version B has a cognition he should be put back on the cans and checked. Usually an F/N will be found.

__________

It has not been fully determined how many times a pc can be run on “Hold it Still”.

But if the pc has been run before on the process and does not run, it should be checked for overrun and rehabbed.

LRH: sb.rd 	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1971 	Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 15 SEPTEMBER 1971
Remimeo

C/S Series 60

THE WORST TANGLE

Sometimes a C/S gets a terrible tangle handed to him as follows.

1. 	INTERIORIZATION RUNDOWN IS UNDONE OR MESSED UP.

2. 	FAULTY LISTS HAVE BEEN DONE.

3. 	THE PC IS IN A HEAVY ARC BRK WITH PTPs AND W/Hs.

Now each one of these three things “must be done first”.

Auditing cannot be done with Int messed up except to handle the Int RD.

Auditing cannot be done over bad lists without repairing the lists.

Auditing cannot be done over out ruds without putting the ruds in.

So WHAT does the C/S do?

There is fortunately a different degree of upset in these three things.

Int RD trouble is worse than list trouble is worse than out ruds.

Therefore the correct C/S would be to

1. 	Repair Int

2. 	Repair Lists

3. 	Put in Ruds.

1. 	Repair Int RD is done by using L3B on each flow. And (on Flag) by dating to blow and locating to blow.

2. 	Lists are repaired with L4B on each list, preferably with the list available and preferably with the actual list repaired (such as added to if incomplete or correct item found and given to pc).

3. 	And if the pc also had out ruds THESE ARE NOW PUT IN WITH “Have you been audited over an (ARC Brk, PTP, w/h)?” as the pc has been.

It will all come out all right if properly done.  Very few pcs get that messed up. But when they do even they can be untangled.

If a lot of engrams were also run on top of that and these are also in the mess, repair them last as a fourth action.  And don’t forget to send auditors responsible to Cramming and report C/Ses who get a case that snarled up.

C/S Series 53 is written with the above sequence of handling. But it omits ARC Brks (as these don’t raise or lower TA out of normal range). And C/S Series 53 as it is designed only for high or low TA does not cover the trick of putting in the ruds as “Were you audited over an (ARC Brk, PTP, w/h)?” as it purposely has to omit ARC Brks.

Hope this helps.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH:nt.rd 	
Copyright © 1971 	
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 21 OCTOBER 1971
REISSUED 21 SEPTEMBER 1974
(Only change is signature)
Remimeo
(Taken from HQS Booklet Sect I, edited from ABILITY 73,
“Assists in Scientology”, by L. Ron Hubbard.
Edited and reissued for use on the HQS Co-Audit.)

ASSISTS IN SCIENTOLOGY

DEFINITION: AN ASSIST: AN ACTION UNDERTAKEN BY A MINISTER TO ASSIST THE SPIRIT TO CONFRONT PHYSICAL DIFFICULTIES.

An assist is not normally done in a formal session. The way the term has been used is a very simple activity to relieve an immediate troublesome difficulty.

An assist is much more specifically and definitely anything which is done to alleviate a present-time discomfort.

An assist could happen almost anywhere. At the beginning of a session, no matter how formally this session is constituted, you are running an assist.

You have an auditing room. You have a preclear, and you are the auditor. You know all these things, but the preclear doesn’t. Don’t call it a formal session. Tell the preclear that it is an assist and that you are not intending anything very strenuous. In rendering an assist you should tell the preclear that “this is just an assist” to try and ease the pain in his hand a little, after which you are going to stop.

The handling of an assist as an auditor is different than the handling of a formal session since the factor of control is notably slackened, sometimes almost completely missing.

One of the factors in assists is that an assist has as a large part of its anatomy, “trying to help”. Just remember that you are only trying to help and don’t get your heart broken by the fact that the fellow’s broken spine doesn’t heal instantly.

Another factor is that an assist is differentiated and defined as addressing the game someone knows he is playing.

What techniques would comprise an assist? Anything that would help. And what are these? One of the easiest ones to render is Locational Processing. You tell the person, “Look at that chair. Look at that ceiling. Look at that floor. Look at that hand” (the auditor pointing to the objects), when he has an injured hand and the pain will diminish. This is a very easy assist.

For example, a person has a bad shoulder. You touch his hand of the same arm and say, “Close your eyes and look at my fingers.’’ Make sure that he keeps his eyes closed. You then touch him on the elbow and say, “Look at my fingers.’’ Do this anywhere on his body. Just touch him and say, “Look at my fingers.” This is a communication process which eases his attention over from a concentration upon the injury to something else which is quite near the injury and thus doesn’t result in too much of a shock. It reduces havingness but it is positive and gets positive results. It can be done by an untrained person.

You can teach this assist to anybody. You say, “If somebody has a bruise, injury, a burn, a cut, the way to handle this is to tell the person to close his eyes, and then you touch the area near and distant from the vicinity of the injured area, asking them, with their eyes closed, to look at your fingers. You contact them this way many times. They will experience sudden pains in the area, and you will discover that the ‘psychic trauma’ has been discharged.”

You will find that most people do not have any upset about physical contact. Most people think that this is the thing to do.

Say you wanted to render an assist on somebody who had a very indefinite difficulty. That is the hardest one to render an assist on. The person has a pain but he cannot say where. He doesn’t know what has happened to him. He just feels bad. Use Locational Processing as such. You will find out that this process will work when other processes fail.

An assist carries with it a certain responsibility. If you give an assist casually to somebody out in the public and do not shove a calling card in his pocket, you are making an error. The reason for this is that he will not know from whom and where help came. An auditor goes through life and he casts his shadow upon many people and they have really no cognizance of what has happened at all if he is rendering an assist. He says, “Do this, do that”—maybe he wins, or maybe he loses because this is the type of session least calculated to procure orderly results. But in the main these people have been helped. They don’t know really by what, except some word that the auditor kept saying. They don’t even know that he is an auditor. They don’t know anything about it at all. Show a person where he can obtain further assistance, and by whom the assistance was given.

Be yourself. Be positive. Be professional and definite. Have a calling card and make sure the card is easily enough understood. Don’t ask them for permission. Just do it. No reason to wander around and give them funny notions. If you are going to help some stranger out, help him out. Don’t explain to him or any bystander, otherwise you are likely to stand there explaining, waiting for somebody’s permission. Don’t bother with that. You act as though you are the one in charge and you will be in charge. And this is part and parcel of the knowledge of how to do an assist. You have got to be the person in charge. This has to be so good, as far as you are concerned, that you overcome the informality of the session to a very marked degree. If you do it extremely well, the assist will amount to auditing.

Say, for example, there is a big accident and a crowd of people are pressing around. The police are trying to push the people back. Well, push the people back and then push the policeman back. Say, “Officer, keep these people at a distance.” Then you lean over the victim and snap him back to rights. If you are enough THERE, everybody else will realize that you are the ONE that is THERE. Therefore, such things as panic, worry, wonder, upset, looking dreamily into the far distance, wondering what is wrong or what should be done, are no part of your make-up if you are rendering an assist. Cool, calm and collected should be the keynote of your attitude. Realize that to take control of any given situation it is only necessary to be there more than anybody else. There is no necromancy (magic; conjuration of the spirits of the dead in order to predict the future) involved. Just BE there. The others aren’t. And if you are there enough, then somebody else will pull himself out of it and go on living.

Understand that an auditor when rendering an assist must make up with presence what he lacks in surroundings and agreements. It all comes under the heading of willingness to be there and willingness to control people.

One of the ways of convincing people of beingness and of being there is to exercise control—positive, undeniable Tone 40 exercise of control. Start to control the situation with high enough ARC, enough presence and factuality—there won’t be anybody present that won’t step back and let you control the situation. You are entitled to it in the first place because of senior “know-how”. The control of body attention or thought comprises the majority of your knowledge. The majority in Scientology simply points in this direction. The observable thing is control of attention, objects and thoughts. When you have good confidence of being able to handle these, and when you positively know how to do these, then you can make sure that everybody else knows you can do this, and you make them realize this by doing it. You have all of these things available in rendering an assist.

You might never think of a riot as being a situation which necessitated an assist, or an assist as applicable to a riot, but a riot is simply a psychosomatic momentary injury or traumatic condition on the third dynamic. Could you settle a riot? Well, if you can settle a riot, you can certainly settle one person who is in a riot. The antithesis of any pain, disturbance or tumult is order. The thing which controls tumult is order; and, conversely, the thing which controls order is tumult. You need only bring order into a confused situation and bring confusion into an orderly situation to control everything in the field of motion, action and objects.

This is a fantastic simplicity and one which takes some grasping. Conceive as order, merely a fixed position, idea and attitude. A policeman knows what he is supposed to do. Maybe he will put on a tourniquet or maybe he won’t. Keep the people away and stop everything is his idea of how it should be. Now you can aid or abet the order he is creating, or cancel the order by creating a confusion which he cannot handle. Of the two, the first is the best in that situation. You aid and abet and cap the order he is creating. If you were to accuse him of having a confused accident scene, which is by now not at all confused, and ask him to straighten it out, you would channel his attention in the direction it is already gone, and so you control his attention.

Remember, those people are still moving a little bit; they are still breathing. There is still a tiny bit of motion going on. If you were to ask him something on the order of “Can’t we have it a little quieter and more orderly here?”, he would at once perceive that there was far too much confusion and motion, and he would simply come under your direction because you have simply channeled his attention in the direction it was already going. Therefore, you have taken control.

If you ever want to overset a fixed order, create a confusion. If you want to overset a confusion, create a fixed order. Pick out of the scene those beings in the scene whose attention is channeled in the direction you want attention to go, and you aid and abet that attention which already exists. Or, where you have too many fixed positions and fixed ideas to overcome, you simply take those turbulent individuals in the scene who are creating the confusion against those fixed ideas and channels and you make their confusion much more confused, at the same time yourself imposing another order in another direction.

The mechanics of taking over any confused scene are simply the mechanics of trying to get a preclear to see through the morass of cross purposes, commands, ideas, and environments in which he has lived. And whether that applies to the third dynamic or otherwise, the laws are still there and it tells you then that the imposition of order on a preclear comes foremost in an assist.

In an assist you always count on the fact that the thetan himself would, if he could, do the right thing. If you work on that postulate you will never be wrong. Get the idea that it is something else trying to do the wrong thing. The keynote of a thetan is order.

Where you are giving an assist to one person, you put things in the environment into an orderly state as the first step, unless you are trying to stop a pumping artery—but here you would use First Aid. You should understand that First Aid always precedes an assist. You should look the situation over from the standpoint of how much First Aid is required. Maybe you will find somebody with a temperature of 106 degrees. It may very well be that he needs to lie down and be covered up, and though antibiotics are much overrated, he might be better off with a shot of one of these than with an assist at that time.

Auditing will not shut off a pumping artery, but a tourniquet will. If you are going into the zone of accidents, you are going to be in the vicinity of a great deal of destruction and chaos, and you are very foolish not to have your Red Cross First Aid Certificate. You may often have to find some method of controlling, handling and directing personnel who get in your way before you can render an assist. You might just as well realize that an assist requires that you control the entire environment and personnel associated with the assist if necessary.

An assist is auditing on several dynamics. It is, therefore, much harder to do than auditing in a formal room as it requires presence. You must bring yourself to face the fact that you have to give enough presence and enough control to enough dynamics to bring the environment into a compliance with your postulate. If you postulate that somebody is going to pick up his bed and walk, then you have to be willing to move and be capable of moving around the people who are going to watch him pick up his bed and walk.

A good example of an assist would be when somebody is washing dishes in the kitchen. There is a horrendous crash and the person comes down all over the sink, hits the floor and as she is going down, she grabs the butcher knife as it falls. You go in and say, “Well, let me fix that up.” One of the first things you would have to do is to wind some bandage around the hand to stop the bleeding. Part of the First Aid would be to pick up the dishes and put them back on the sink, sweep the pieces together into a more orderly semblance. This is the first symptom of control. She becomes introverted into the cut to the point that she wouldn’t particularly notice what you were doing. But you relieve the anxiety that all her blood is pouring out; your first attention to the case is attention to the environment.

Next you would make her sit down. To remove her from the scene of the accident is not as desirable as auditing her there. That is directly contrary, perhaps, to what you believe, but it is true. That is why you bring a little order into the environment. You position her and then you are ready for techniques. It is quite remarkable for you have manifested order in a much wider sphere than a cut hand in order to bring about a healing of the cut hand. If you understand that your responsibility always extends much wider than the immediate zone of commotion, you never miss. If you bring order to the wider environment you also bring it to the narrower environment. If you bring it into the narrow environment, you also bring it to the wider environment. It is a gradient scale of how much order you can bring.

In processing, you have to control or direct attention, objects, person, or thoughts of the injured person. If you are really good on the subject of assists, you will direct an additional thing: his knowingness. You can control a man’s knowingness rather easily, but it is hard to see it. About the first thing that you can observe about somebody is his person. You are trying to straighten it out. Don’t think even though you have this person sitting down that you have straightened it out, because it is still messed up. But there is something that you can straighten out easily—and that is his attention. If you could heighten his attention and his knowingness at the same time, you would really be in wonderful circumstances. You always shift and direct his attention, hence Locational Processing.

Because he is injured you are not going to move his person around. You have got his attention. Don’t try to shift his thoughts around at first because they are dispersed and chaotic. This leaves you his attention only.

If someone is in terrible condition and he is really writhing around, and you want to render an assist, you don’t wait until he stops writhing. He is liable to stop writhing dead. What you do with him is to direct his attention. You tell him to “Shut your eyes and look at my fingers. “ You press your fingers hard enough so that he can’t help but put his attention on them. In this wise you can always have a successful assist, because assists all come under the heading of control. The beingness of the person and his presence makes the control possible. So part of control is always presence, identity, person, the one who takes charge and has things under control. When you are able to control his attention, his body and thoughts, then he will be in session and you are no longer doing an assist.

Assists dominantly require that you direct the attention of the preclear and dispose his person one way or the other and eventually take over control of his thoughts on the subject. But by the time you have all these three in line, you are no longer doing an assist.

So what you really do is do an assist up to the time the person can handle the incident or pain, put him in a more favorable environment and give him auditing. So the assist is what you do on the street, and auditing is what you do in the auditing room when he comes to you after your assist has been successful.

	L. RON HUBBARD
	Founder

LRH:nt jh 	
Copyright © 1958,1971, 1974 	
by L. Ron Hubbard                             
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED	

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 24 OCTOBER 1971

Remimeo 
Add to E-Meter Books 
Checksheets
FALSE TA

Some pcs have a very difficult time in auditing due solely to can (electrode) outnesses.

Some auditors have heavy losses because they do not realize the troubles that can come from electrodes and thus remedy them.

TA USE

The TA must be between 2 and 3 for a correct F/N.

When the TA is reading falsely a pc can be butchered.

Example: Auditor talking the TA down. It gets to “3.1” by his meter. So he gets the pc to talk a bit more to get the TA between 2 and 3 and F/N. The TA suddenly rises to 3.8.

Pc and Auditor go desperate. What has happened is that the TA was a false read. It was really reading 2.9 and F/Ning but for reasons given below it read “3.1”. Thus the auditor overran the F/N and by keeping on invalidated the release, pulled the pc’s attention out of session and demanded more than the pc had to give.

Example: Auditor 2 way communicating with pc to get the TA up from “1.8”. The TA suddenly sinks to 1.6, pc goes into apathy.

What happened was a missed F/N. For reasons covered below the TA at 1.8 was false and was really at 2.1 and F/Ning.

Example: Pc being asked for an earlier similar incident because TA is at “4.0”. Pc can’t get one, gets desperate, TA goes to 5.0.

For reasons given below the TA was at 3.0 but was reading falsely at “4.0”.

Some cases get upset at the very idea of F/N when these mistakes are made.

More than one case has missed all his wins for a year because of a false TA.

So it is very important to know how a false TA comes about and how to avoid it.

A properly set up meter with cans (electrodes) fitted to a pc who is holding them properly IS AL WA YS CORRECT.

However, totally false Tone Arm readings can exist and an auditor must know how these come about.

TRIM

A meter can be improperly trimmed (not set at 2.0 with the trim knob) and can give a false TA position.

Further, when a meter is not left on a minute or two before trimming, it can drift in the session and give a slightly false TA.

The trim can be quietly checked in mid-session by snapping out the jack where the cord goes into the box and putting the TA on 2, seeing if the needle is now on SET. If not, the trim knob can be moved to adjust it. The jack is quietly slipped back in. All without distracting the pc.

DISCHARGED

A cadmium cell meter discharges very suddenly when it does go flat.

In mid-session the meter can run out of battery. The TA will cease to act well and may go very false.

The remedy is to keep a meter charged at least one hour for every 10 of auditing for 240 AC volt charging current, or 2 hours for every 10 of auditing on a 110 AC volt charging current.

A meter lasts much longer than this in practice but the above is very safe.

Before each session snap the knob over to TEST. The needle should hit hard on the right side of the face. It can even bounce. This guarantees lots of charge in the battery and no chance of a meter going flat in session.

If the needle doesn’t snap to the right hard or if it doesn’t quite get there on TEST, then that meter will go flat in mid-session and give false TA and no reads or TA on hot subjects.

ONE HAND ELECTRODE

A single hand electrode with two terminals separated by a rubber works. BUT it always gives a falsely high TA.

A Solo auditor who does not know this can get a release point and go half mad wondering why he is F/Ning at 4.0!

The answer is to make a “single hand” electrode out of two small cans (about 33 inches by 21/8 inches or 91/2 cm by 51/2 cm) (or even smaller for a very small-handed pc). Glue a thin circle of foam rubber solidly to the bottom of one can so it reaches out slightly around the bottom. (Don’t glue it up the sides.)

Put the alligator jaw clips one to each can. Now put the can bottoms together and hold them in one hand. Mark the TA (I)—meaning one hand (such as 3.75 (1) ). Now take the cans one in each hand and mark the TA (2)—meaning two hands (such as 3.0

Audit with them in one hand. Keep your worksheet with (1) marks (such as 3.5 (1) ). Check at start and middle and end by taking a can in each hand and putting down the 2 can read (such as 2.5 (2) ).

It is too much trouble to totally change cans and the distraction can change the TA read.

This two small can arrangement is not quite accurate. It gives a lower TA than big cans. But the difference is slight. It can scare you with a 1.9 when trim is 2.0 and real TA is 2.0. If this happens check with big cans.

(As an added tip a solo auditor usually keeps the back of his hand on his leg while solo auditing. The small 71/2 volt current gives a tingle to the leg that is distracting when one’s hand is moist. Put a piece of foam rubber in a plastic sack. Lay the sack on the leg, put your hand on this pad. It insulates the area and is very comfortable.)

MOIST HANDS

When a pc’s hands sweat a lot you will get a low TA.

Contrary to 19th Century superstition the meter does not work on sweat. Very sweaty hands as found on nervous persons give a false TA. It goes low.

Many “low  TA cases” are just sweaty hand cases.

Paper handkerchiefs (Kleenex) are a standard item for an auditing room—for grief charges and burning eyes, etc. These should be available.

If the TA is low, check if the pc’s hands are wet. If so, have him wipe them and get a new read. It is usually found that the 1.6 was really 2.0. Or the 1.6 was really 1.8 and the trim was 1.8 = 2.0.

Have the pc wipe hands, check and correct trim before you by-pass all a “low TA’s” F/Ns!

TAs can go low. Invalidation of the pc, lousy TRs can drive one low. If so the TA comes back up on repair.

But don’t brand a case a low TA case until you make sure his hands are dried and the meter trimmed.

Also, very small cans or cans too small for the pc can give a slightly low reading.

DRY HANDS

Some pcs have extremely dry hands, usually from industrial chemicals such as chlorine in dishwater or skin scale.

This can give a wildly high TA.

The pc can be worried to death with high TA repairs when in fact he just doesn’t have contact with the electrode.

Metal foot plates connected to the meter and the pc barefooted in session will usually handle.

A quick test is have the pc put the cans under his armpits and you’ll see if it’s his calloused or chemically dried-out hands.

ARTHRITIC HANDS

A rare pc is so crippled with arthritis that he doesn’t make contact fully with the cans.

This gives a high TA.

Use foot plates or wide wrist straps and you’ll get a right read.
SLACK GRIP

Sometimes a rare pc lets his hands go slack on the cans, particularly if they are the wrong size cans, too big.

This gives a mysterious “high TA”. It is false. The TA will come down only to 3.2 and F/N and of course an overrun then really gives a high TA. And the pc goes a bit frantic and begins to believe things don’t erase or release.

Keep the pc’s hands in sight. Check the pc’s grip. Get smaller cans.

CAN SIZE

The most common fault is wrong can size.

For a normal or large-handed pc the can size is about 4 7/8 inches by 2 5/8 inches or 121/2 cm by 7 cm. This can be altered as big as 41/2 inches by 3 inches diameter or 11 cm by 8 cm. This is Standard.

This can is too large for people with small hands. These should use a can 33/4 inches by 2 1/8 inches or 9 cm by 5 cm diameter or thereabouts.

A small child would be lost even with that can. So a small 35 mm film can could be used. This is 2 inches long by 1 3/16 inches diameter or 5 cm by 3 cm. This works but watch it as these cans are aluminum. They do work but test for true read with a slightly larger can and then trim to adjust for the aluminum if any different.

Cans of course should be STEEL with a thin tin plating. Regular soup cans.

Can size to match the pc avoids slack can grip or tiring the hands into going slack, giving the auditor 3.2 F/Ns and trouble.

COLD PC

A pc who is too cold sometimes has a falsely high TA.

Wrap him in a blanket or get a warmer auditing room.

The auditing environment is the responsibility of the auditor.

LATE AT NIGHT

Between 2 and 3 AM or late at night a pc’s TA may be very high. The time depends on when he sleeps usually.

This TA will be found normal in regular hours.

RINGS

Rings on the pc’s hands must always be removed. They don’t influence TA but they give a false Rockslam.

FLOATING TA

Many an auditor before now has gone a bit mad trying to handle a floating TA. They are not very common and are startling.

What happens is the pc is so released the needle can’t be gotten onto the dial. The needle is swinging wider than the meter dial both ways from center and appears to lay first on one side then the other. The TA can’t be moved fast enough to keep the extreme floating needle on the dial.

This gives a false TA of sorts as it can’t be read.

Some auditors seeing it for the first time have even sent the pc out of the room so they could “adjust” the meter or get another one!

Thus the very highest state of release can be invalidated as where is  the TA?

RUSTY CORRODED CANS

You’d think soup was very expensive the way some auditors hold onto old cans.

Corroded cans can falsify TA. Get new ones now and then.

TIGHT SHOES

And then there was the vain lady who wore shoes too small for her feet.

She removed them every session. The session went well each time.

Then she put on her agonizing shoes and went to the Examiner and the C/Ses and auditors all went mad trying to find out why every Exam had a high TA.

Tight shoes.

The E-Meter is accurate. It is a lovely instrument.

You have to fit the pc to it.

Good luck.

LRH: nt.rd	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright ©1971	Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard	
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 25 OCTOBER 1971
Remimeo

DRUG DRYING OUT

It occasionally happens that someone is still on drugs when he or she requires drug processing.

This sets up a very rough problem.

DRUGS PREVENT ANY CASE GAIN.

If the person is still on drugs, processing will have little effect. He will not cease to be a drug addict. The drugs trap him.

When the world went druggie (about 1960), this problem of drying out became one of the first order. It was not just a problem to us. All pre-Scientology efforts failed—and had been failing for all Man’s history. But relatively small numbers had been involved. After 1960 the problem became planet-wide.

Our first organization to handle this was Los Angeles. They made the person cease to take drugs for 6 weeks, then audited the drugs out. Most of these cases stayed stable and thereafter had case gain and were no longer condemned to an eternity of disability.

However, some were unable to stop taking drugs.

What is called WITHDRAWAL SYMPTOMS set in. These are the body and mental reactions to no longer taking drugs. They are ghastly. No torturer ever set up anything worse.

The patient had this problem then:

A. 	Stay on drugs and be trapped and suffering from here on out.

B. 	Try to come off the drugs and be so agonizingly ill meanwhile that he couldn’t stand it.

This was a dead if you do, dead if you don’t sort of problem.

Medicine did not solve it adequately. Psychotherapy was impossible.

Two approaches now exist to this withdrawal problem.

1. 	Light objective (look outward, take attention off body) processes ease the gradual withdrawal and make it possible.

2. 	Nutritionist experiments indicate that vitamins assist the withdrawal.

Objective processes are covered elsewhere in this material.

VITAMIN THERAPY

According to world-renowned nutritionist Adelle Davis, vitamin therapy has had success in handling Withdrawal Symptoms.
Instead of just telling the person to break off drugs with all that suffering and danger of failure, the patient is given heavy doses of vitamins. The data is repeated here for information.

DRUG BOMB
ONE DOSE

1,000 mg of niacin amide (not nicotinic acid as it is severely toxic in such amounts). This for any mental disturbance.

500 milligrams of magnesium carbonate (to make the Vitamin C effective).

2,000 milligrams of Vitamin C.

25 milligrams of B6.

200 milligrams of B Complex.

100 milligrams of pantothenic acid.

ADMINISTRATION

The bomb is given four times a day, roughly every six hours.

It is given in a mild preparation that furnishes intestinal flora such as yoghurt.

GREAT CAUTION must be used to give the dose in such a way that the vitamins will not corrode the stomach. If this is neglected the patient can be given a false duodenal (upper intestine) ulcer and will be unable to continue the treatment. Druggies are usually in terrible physical condition anyway. Thus all the above would have to be in “enteric coated” capsules, meaning an intestinal shielding must be on the pills so they gradually dissolve and don’t hit the sensitive upper stomach hard enough to corrode it.

Thus milk with powdered amino acids in it would have to be given to wash the pills down.

In testing these recommendations stomach corrosion from the bomb was the main barrier noted.

If the bomb is given without any cushion the patient can (a) feel too full after eating (b) have a stomach ache (c) have a burning sensation (d) the exterior of the stomach can get sore. These are all stomach ulcer symptoms.

If such symptoms turn on, end off the vitamins. Aluminum hydroxide tablets chewed up and swallowed in milk each time the symptoms start will ease the stomach. Amino acids, intestinal flora and milk must then be given until the stomach gets better.

Shots, with a needle, especially of Vitamin C can be too painful. Not the needle, that’s nothing; but the vitamin itself.

Such medication is in a crude state of research, mainly because of the violent hostility earlier exerted against vitamin people by the American Medical Association and other reactionaries to anything beneficial or new.

It is hoped that the stomach corrosion factor can be lessened by new preparations which do the same thing but less violently.
I am not particularly advocating the use of the Drug Bomb but as a pioneer in this area of research I feel that any data of value on the subject of drug withdrawal should be widely published.

The difficulties and agonies of withdrawal are the primary failure point in trying to salvage a being from the insanity of drugs.

SUMMARY

People who have been on drugs do not make case gain until the drugs are handled in processing.

Processing such as Dianetics is not effective when done on a person who is taking drugs.

Withdrawal from drugs sometimes sets up a violent physical reaction too painful or depressing to be continued and the person goes back on drugs.

Anyone on drugs or who has taken drugs is doomed as a being just like that. He or she will cave right on in and finish up in the ash can from here on out.

Only processing by Dianetics and Scientology can handle the effects of drugs fully. No other technology, medical or biochemical, has ever helped—we have thousands of cases to prove this completely.

The primary barrier to processing is getting the person off drugs and keeping him off until he can be fully audited. Then he will be very okay.

Two means to do this are known—A. Light objective processes while “drying out” and B. Nutritional therapy.

A and B can be combined.

Neither A nor B will fully handle drugs. The person on vitamins if not processed will relapse.

Vitamins are not drugs. They are nutrition. A person can be processed while on them.

By close application of these principles the person can be salvaged.

And having been salvaged can go on up to greater freedom and ability.

He won’t make it otherwise by any other known technology.

                                        	L. RON HUBBARD
                                        	Founder

LRH:nt.rd 
Copyright © 1971 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 25 OCTOBER 1971
Issue III
HQS Course

AUDITOR FAILURE TO UNDERSTAND

(Edited from HCOB 17 Oct 1962
for use on the HQS Course)

If a pc says something and the auditor fails to understand what the pc said or meant, the correct response is:

“I did not (hear you) (understand what was said) (get that last).”

To do anything else is not only bad form, it can amount to a heavy ARC break.

INVALIDATION

To say “You did not speak loud enough_____” or any other use of “you” is an invalidation.

The pc is also thrown out of session by having responsibility hung on him or her.

The Auditor is responsible for the session. Therefore the auditor has to assume responsibility for all comm breakdowns in it.

EVALUATION

Far more serious than invalidation above, is the accidental evaluation which may occur when the auditor repeats what the pc said.

NEVER repeat anything a pc says after him, no matter why.

Repeating not only does not show the pc you heard but makes him feel you’re a circuit.

The highest advance of 19th Century Psychology was a machine to drive people crazy. All it did was repeat after the person everything the person said.

Children also do this to annoy.

But that isn’t the main reason you do not repeat what the pc said after the pc. If you say it wrong the pc is thrown into heavy protest. The pc must correct the wrongness and hangs up right there. It may take an hour to dig the pc out of it.

Further, don’t gesture to find out. To say, pointing, “You mean this item, then,” is not only an evaluation but a nearly hypnotic command, and the pc feels he must reject very strongly.

Don’t tell the pc what the pc said and don’t gesture to find what the pc meant.

Just get the pc to say it again or get the pc to point it out again. That’s the correct action.

SUMMARY

A very high percentage of ARC breaks occur because of a failure to understand the pc.

Don’t prove you didn’t with gestures or erroneous repeats.

Just audit, please.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH:dr.rd.pe.rd	
Copyright © 1962, 1971	
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 12 NOVEMBER 1971 R
Add to E-Meter 	  (Revised 6 March 73. Only change is addition
Books Studies	      of the word “cold”—first para.)
Checksheets

FALSE TA ADDITION

(Refers and adds to HCO B 24 Oct 1971
“False TA”)

COLD CANS

Regardless of can size, cold E-Meter electrodes tend to give a much higher Tone Arm reading particularly on some pcs.

Until the cans warm up, the reading is generally false and is false in the direction of high.

A chilled pc almost always has a high TA until he or she gets warm. Just throwing a coat over the pc’s shoulders can bring down a TA in a cool room. But some pcs are “cool blooded” and the shock of ice-cold cans can drive the TA up and it takes a while to drift down.

This has a great effect on Examinations where the cans are used very briefly.

A practice which gets around this is for the auditor or examiner to hold the cans briefly until they are warm and then give them to the pc. A variation is for the auditor or examiner to put the cans under his armpits while setting up. This warms them.

There are probably many other ways to warm up cans to body temperature.

FOOTPLATES

Tests show that footplates do not give exactly the same read as hand-held electrodes on pcs who have nothing wrong with their hands.

This is probably due to body imbalances. Cans held under the armpits or under knees (not advised as there sometimes is a tiny electrical sting) give varied reads from hand-held cans.

Where full weight rests on the footplates the read is also varied.

To all practical purposes the differences can be neglected unless they give trouble in getting F/Ns. One should simply be alert in using footplates and find out the differences if new problems of false TA or no F/Ns develop and handle any such trouble when it occurs. A person used to going barefoot for instance would have foot calluses and would give a false footplate TA.

PCS WHO FALSIFY

Some pcs (rare) take mistaken pride in being able to push the TA up by straining or tensing.

By just moving into the body the TA can be sent up by an otherwise exterior pc.

Some pcs also take a road out by “getting an F/N at will”. They have various tricks that do this, the main one being to “think of something else” and get an F/N. Any of these (rare) pcs are manifesting out-of-sessionness. They aren’t in session. The definition of In session is “interested in own case and willing to talk to the auditor”. Remedy that and they cease such tricks.

Usually they aren’t being run on what they are interested in or have comm blocks or withholds or no confidence.

They are easy to detect and easy to handle.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH: nt.rd	
Copyright © 1971, 1973	
by L. Ron Hubbard	
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED	

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 15 FEBRUARY 1972

Remimeo
All Tech
Qual Terminals

FALSE TA ADDITION 2

Reference:	HCO B 24 Oct 71	False TA
	HCO B 12 Nov 71	False TA Addition
	C/S Series 53 	HI-LO TA Assessment
		Int Ext Correction List

There is an infinity of wrong ways to get a pc to read between 2.0 and 3.0 on an E-Meter.

One method would be to shoot him. Dead bodies read between 2.0 and 3.0.

Another way is to throw the trim knob off.

Yet another wrong way is to use HAND CREAM to make the TA go lower and call "F/Ns" at 4.0 on an actual read.

An auditor who is not very expert is apt to find strange ways to do things because the usual is beyond his skill.

A GOOD auditor handles low and high TAs with HCO B 24 Oct 71 and Addition 12 Nov 71 and this HCO B "False TA", C/S Series 53 and the Hi-Lo TA Assessment.

The commonest sources of high TA are PROTEST, OVERRUN and out INTERIORIZATION RD and too big or too small cans.

The commonest sources of low TA are overwhelming auditor TRs or wet sweaty hands.

The subject is not open to experimentation. If a pc's TA is low or high and you don't correct it with the usual remedies mentioned above, the pc goes into the soup.

GOOD AUDITORS KNOW THEIR TECH AND USE IT TO REMEDY HIGH AND LOW TAs.

GOOD AUDITORS DO HONEST WORKSHEETS AND HONEST AUDITING.

BE A GOOD AUDITOR.

                                        	L. RON HUBBARD
                                        	Founder

LRH: ne.rd 
Copyright © 1972 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 18 FEBRUARY 1972
Issue I

Remimeo

FALSE TA ADDITION 3

(There are now four False TA HCO Bs including this one.
These were issued as more data was uncovered.)
HCO B 24 Oct 71 False TA
HCO B 12 Nov 71 False TA Addition
HCO B 15 Feb 72 False TA Addition 2
and this one
HCO B 18 Feb 72 False TA Addition 3

A meter is a meter.

Meters are used to measure water, natural gas, and many other things.

An E meter is used to measure a pc.

If you rig a meter up so as to falsify its reads you get a wrong result.

You could rig up a water meter so it read that twice as much water had flowed and then sit around and wonder all week why the swimming pool never filled up.

The ACCURACY of a meter depends upon its being honestly set up and honestly used.

The HONESTY of the auditor determines his results.

The whole field of psychotherapy was dishonest from the days of witch doctors to psychiatry. Falsified data came from lack of knowledge of the mind. This made its practitioners DISHONEST.

We do not and must not follow that fatal road.

The technology we have WORKS to definite positive predictable results.

Results are obtained if the auditor has honestly studied and understood his materials and honestly applies them.

Falsifying study leads to falsifying meters and this gives bad results on pcs.

HONEST use of the materials and the meter gives an honest result.

One who does not know his materials and who cannot do his drills then thinks he has to make a meter cheat.

HONEST use of the meter by an HONEST auditor is the route to GOOD RESULTS.

LOW TAs

A bad practice has arisen to "beat" the low TA.

This is to have the pc wipe his hands every few minutes to get the TA up above 2.0.

Not only does this distract the pc and yank him out of session, but it is by inference putting his attention on the meter, a thing a good auditor does NOT do in a formal session. The pc's attention must be on his own case in a session, not on the meter or his hands.

An answer to low TA because of wet hands is foot plates.

But the best answer is to get the pc up scale so he doesn't have perspiring hands.

Overwhelming TRs is the commonest reason for low TAs. Not all the hand wiping in the world will cure poor TRs.

Some auditors "spook" (leap off the road like a horse frightened by something blowing along) at the very thought of high or low TAs. This is because they haven't got the TRs to handle a low TA nor the tech to handle a high one.

Making a meter read falsely low with cream or falsely high with talcum powder or wiping hands continually will not handle the pc's CASE.

That is what the auditor is there to do, not make his session look good!

The funniest one I have ever heard was a Solo auditor who had high TA trouble. So he used to fill up a bathtub with scalding water, fill the bathroom full of clouds of steam and then sit in the bath, holding onto his electrodes "Solo auditing".

It gave him a lower TA but it sure didn't give him any case result.

We maybe ought to have a contest as to who can come up with the most comical actual instances of falsifying meter reads.

One "auditor" "solved it" by just calling F/Ns whenever she got tired of the pc regardless of TA position. After a year or more of this she saw the light and put herself in Ethics.

The funny part is that her co-auditor had been doing the same thing on her!

HONEST TA IS THE BEST POLICY.

                                        	L. RON HUBBARD
                                        	Founder

LRH: ne.rd 
Copyright © 1972 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 13 MARCH 1972

Remimeo
Establishment Officer Series 5

PRODUCTION AND ESTABLISHMENT
ORDERS AND PRODUCTS

The situation one often finds in an org, after one has, to some degree, conquered Dev-T, is that PEOPLE REQUIRE ORDERS.

For years I wondered why this was so. Well, I found it.

WHEN PEOPLE DO NOT CLEARLY KNOW WHAT THEIR PRODUCTS ARE THEY REQUIRE CONSTANT ORDERS.

To the Establishment Officer, this reflects most visibly in trying to get Program targets DONE.

Some people have to be ordered and ordered and ordered and threatened and howled at. Then, in a bewildered way, they do a target, sometimes half, sometimes nearly all.

Behind this apparent blankness lies an omitted datum. When they're like that they don't know what their product is or what it adds up to. Or they think it's something else or should be.

That blankness can invite overts.

It is very seldom that malice or resentment or refusal to work lies behind the inaction. People are seldom that way.

They usually just don't understand what's wanted or why.

Because they don't know what a PRODUCT is!

A whole Ad Council of a downstat org was unable even to define the word.

They had required orders, orders, orders and even then didn't carry them out.

HAT SURVEY FOR ORDERS

A staff member who requires orders may also think that any order is a policy and lasts forever. If you look into hats you will even find casual "close the door" type of orders, given on one occasion to fit one circumstance, are converted over into STANDING (continual) ORDERS that forever keep a certain door closed.

An Est O surveying the hats of a unit may very well find all manner of such oddities.

It is a standard Est O action to survey hats.

In hats you will find despatches giving specific orders or quoted remarks preserved instead of notes on what one has to know to produce a product.

In auditors' hats, directions for 1  specific pc in 1960, never published and from no tape or correct source, held onto like death like it was to be applied to every pc in the world!

A dishwashing hat may have orders in it but not how to wash dishes rapidly and well.

This is all a symptom of a unit or activity that does not know what its products are.

DISESTABLISHMENT

Where you find lots of orders kicking around, you will also find disestablishment by by-pass, command channels not held and staff members like to take their orders from anyone but those in authority—any passerby could give them orders.
This is rampant where an executive has not been well on post.

By counting such orders up and seeing who they are from one can determine the unhattedness of staff, their org bd weaknesses and principally their lack of knowledge of their products.

HATTING FOR PRODUCT

If an Est O is to hat so as to get the staff member to get his product out, then the Est O has to know how to clear up "products".

Now an Est O is an Establishment Officer? There are product officers. The Product of an Est O is the Establishment. Then what is he doing with Products?

Well, if he doesn't hat so staff members get out Products then the org will be a turmoil, unhappy and downstat.

Production is the basis of morale.

Hattedness is a basic of 3rd Dynamic sanity.

But if you don't HAT SO AS TO GET THE STAFF MEMBER YOU ARE HATTING PRODUCING YOU WILL HAT AND HAT AND IT WILL ALL BE IN VAIN. The person won't stay hatted unless he is hatted so as to be able to produce.

The Product Officer should be working to get the products out.

So if you don't hat for the product then the staff member will be tom between two sets of orders, the Est O's and the Product Officer’s.

Only when you hat to get product will you get agreement with product officers.

If you are in disagreement with product officers, then the Est O is not hatting to get production.

RIGHT WAY TO

There is a right direction to hat. All others are incorrect.

1. 	CLEAR UP WHAT THE PRODUCT IS FOR THE POST. AND HAT FROM THERE.

2. 	HAT FROM THE TOP OF THE DIVISION (OR ORG) DOWN.

These are the two right directions.

All other directions are wrong.

These two data are so important that the failure of an Est O can often be traced to violation of them.

You can have a senior Exec going almost livid, resisting being hatted unless you hat by 1st establishing what the product is. If PRODUCT is first addressed and cleaned up then you can also hat from the top down.

If this is not done, the staff will not know where they are going or why and you will get silly unusual situations like "A11 right. So you're the Establishment Officer. Well, I give up. The division can have 2l/2 hours a day Establishment time and then get the hell out of here so some work can be done . . . !" "Man, you got these people all tied up, stats are down! Can't you understand ...."

Well, if you don't do one and two above you’ll run into the most unusual messes and "solutions" you ever heard of, go sailing off policy and as an Est O wind up at your desk doing Admin instead of getting your job done in the Division. And an Est O who is not on his feet working in the Division is worth very little to anyone.

So see where the basic errors lead and

Hat on Product before doing anything else and

Hat from the top down.

STEPS TO CLEAR "PRODUCT"

This is a general rundown of the sequence by which Product is cleared and re-cleared and re-cleared again.

This can be checklisted for any Exec or staff member and should be with name and date and kept in the person's "Est O file folder" for eventual handing to his new Est O when the person is transferred out of the division or in Personnel Files if he goes elsewhere.

1. 	Clear the word PRODUCT.

2. 	Get what the Product or Products of the post should be. Get it or any number of products he has fully fully stated, not brushed off.

3. 	Clear up the subject of Exchange. (See HCO PL 27 Nov 71 Exec Series 3 and HCO PL 3 Dec 71 Exec Series 4.)

4. 	Exchange of the product Internal in the org. For what valuable?

5. 	Exchange External of the valuable with another group or public. For what valuable? (Person must come to F/N VGIs on these above actions before proceeding or he goes to an auditor to get his mis Us and out ruds very fully handled.)

6. 	Does he want the product? Clean this up fully to F/N VGIs or yourself get E/S to F/N or get an auditor to unsnarl this.

7. 	Can he get the products (in 2 above) out? How will he? What's he need to know? Get him fully settled on this point.

8. 	Will it be in volume? What volume? Is that enough to bother with or will it have to be a greater volume? Or is he being optimistic? What's real? What's viable?

9. 	What quality is necessary? What would he have to do to attain that? To attain it in volume?

10. 	Can he get others to want the product or products (as in 2 above)? What would he have to do to do this?

11. 	How do his products fit into the unit or section or department or division or the org? Get this all traced.

12. 	Now trace the blocks or barriers he may believe are on this line. Get what HE can do about these.

13. 	What does he have to have to get his product out? (Alert for unreasonable have to have before he can do blocks.)

14. 	Now does he feel he can get his product or products out?

Signature of Est O or Clearer.

NOW  he really can be hatted.

________

BRUSH-OFF

Quickie handling is a very very bad fault. "Quickie" means a brush-off "lick and a promise" like wiping the windshield on the driver's side when really one would have to work at it to get a whole clean car.

So don't "quickie" Product. If this is poorly done on them there goes the old balloon. Hatting won't be possible.

Orders will have to be poured in on this terminal. Dev-T will generate. Overt products will occur, not good ones. And it won't be worthwhile.

DISAGREEMENT

There can be a lot of disagreement amongst Product Officers and Est Os on what products are to be hammered out.

In such a case, or in any case, one can get a Disagreements Check done in Dept of Personnel Enhancement (who should look up how to do one).

This is a somewhat extreme way to settle an argument and should only be a "when all else fails".

It is best to take the whole product pattern of the org apart with the person, STARTING FROM THE BIGGEST PRODUCT OF THE ORG AND WORKING BACK TO THE PERSON'S PRODUCT.
Almost always there will be an outpoint in reasoning.

An Exec who only wants GI can be a trial as he is violating EXCHANGE. As an org is paid usually before it delivers, it is easy to get the org in trouble by backlogs or bad repute for non-delivery. An org that has credit payments due it that aren't paid maybe didn't deliver. But Div III may soften up collections for some reason like that and then where would the org be?

Vol 0 of the OEC Course gives an excellent background of how a basic org works. As one goes to higher orgs, lower orgs are depended upon to continue to flow upward to them. (See HCO PL 9 Mar 72, Issue I, Finance Series 11, "Income Flows and Pools".)

A study of Vol 0 OEC and a full understanding of its basic flows and adapting these to higher orgs will unsnarl a lot of odd ideas about Product.

The Est O has to be very clear on these points or he could mis-hat a person.

Usually however this is very obvious.

PRODUCT OFFICERS

Heads of Orgs and divisions have had to organize so long they get stuck in it.

They will try to order the Est O.

This comes about because they do not know their products or the Est O is not following 1 and 2 above and does not know his own product.

The Product Officer may try to treat the Est O as a sort of "organizing officer" or a "program officer" if

A. 	The Est O is not hatting to get production.

B. 	The Product Officer is not cleared on Product.

So it comes back to the 1 and 2 first mentioned.

You can look over it now and see that if one is not doing these two things, Dev-T, non-viability and orders will occur.

So where you have Dev-T, down stats and orders flying around you know one thing that will resolve it:

SOMETHING WILL HAVE TO BE IRONED OUT ABOUT PRODUCT.

When it all looks impossible, go to this point and get to work on 1 & 2.

LRH:ne.rd	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1972	Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 23 MARCH 1972
Remimeo
Establishment Officer Series 11

FULL PRODUCT CLEARING
LONG FORM

(Reference HCO P/L 13 Mar 72
Est O Series No. 5)

MUST BE DONE ON AN EST O
BEFORE HE DOES IT ON STAFF.

If you ask some people what their product is, you usually get a DOINGNESS.

There are three conditions of existence. They are BE, DO and HAVE.

All products fall under HAVE.

The oddities you will get instead of a proper product are many.

Thus it is possible to "clear products" without any real result.

PRODUCT CLEARING FORM

_____________________	_____________________
	Org                                  	Person's Name

	_____________________
                                               	Date

	_____________________
                                               	Post

The 14 Points of Est O Series 5 are done in this fashion, with a meter used to check words.

STEP ONE

DO NOT TAKE FOR GRANTED THAT THE PERSON KNOWS WHAT "PRODUCT" MEANS. GET IT AND EVERY WORD IN THE DEFINITION LOOKED UP.

(a) 	Clear the Word PRODUCT. Dictionaries give a variety of definitions. Make sure you get a useable definition that the person understands AND WHICH HE UNDERSTANDS ALL THE WORDS IN. He can be hung up on "that" or "is" in the definition itself believe it or not.

(b) 	Have the person USE the word PRODUCT 10 times in sentences of his own invention and use it correctly each time.

(c) 	Now clear up BE, DO, HAVE, the Conditions of Existence. People often think a BE is a product or a DO. It is always something someone can HAVE.

	Clear the words BE, DO, HAVE by dictionary, especially HAVE.

(d) 	Write these on a sheet of paper

             	BE
             	DO
	HAVE.

Tell the person to name a product out in the world (a car, a book, a cured dog, etc).

Put an arrow into the word DO if he gives you a "do", into BE if he gives you a "be" instead of a HAVE.

    	Mark HAVE with an arrow each time he gives a right HAVE product.

	When he can rapidly name a product that is something that one can HAVE, without a comm lag, go on to next step.

(e) 	Clear up this question on a meter Method 4 (see HCO B 22 Feb 72, Word Clearing Series 32, "Word Clearing Method 4"):

	"Have I used any word so far you did not understand?"

	Get it clean.

(f) 	Now give the person a copy of HCO P/L 29 October 70 Org Series 10.

	Have him read the policy letter.

(g) 	Clear by Method 4 Word Clearing this question:

    	"Are there any words in the policy letter you did not understand?"

	Get it cleaned up. If there were any, have him reread the policy letter until he says he has it.

(h) 	Drill the pc on Products 1, 2, 3 and 4.

Write:

	Product 1 	Product 2

	Product 3 	Product 4

on a sheet of paper.

Let him retain and consult the HCO P/L 29 Oct 70 Org Series 10.

Put the point of your pen on one of the products (Product 1 or 2 or 3 or 4) and say, "Name a Product 1." "Name a Product 3." "Name a Product 4." "Name a Product 2." Do this until pc has it.

Now take the P/L away from him and repeat the drill.

When your Product 1, etc is all blacked up with ball-point spots and the person is quick at it, thank him. Tell him he has it and go on to next step.
STEP TWO

(a) 	Look up the hat and org board of the post of the person being product cleared and get some idea of what the post's product would have to be to fit in with the rest of the scene. It won't necessarily be in former hat write-ups. What the post produces must be worked out. Write down what it possibly may be.

(b) 	Get the person to tell you what his post produces. Have him work the wording around until it is totally satisfactory to him and is not incorrect by Step 2 (a).

	Be very  careful indeed that you don't get a wrong product or you could throw the whole line-up of the org out.

	Beware of "a high stat" or "a bonus" or "GI" as these are items received in Exchange, not the person's produced product.

    	Once more resort to 	BE
                   	DO
                   	HAVE

	to be sure he is not giving a doingness. And point this out until he actually has a HAVE.

	Write down the product on the worksheet.

(c) 	Ask if there are any more products to the post. If the person is wearing several hats, he would have a product for each hat. List each hat and get the product of each hat written after it.

(d) 	Now take the principal product of the post and see if it is really three products of different degrees or kinds. (Example: an auditor has [A] A well pc [one who has been gotten over a psychosomatic illness] [B] A person who is physically active and well and will continue to be well, and [C] A being with greatly increased abilities. A Super has [A] A trained student, [B] A Course graduate, [C] A person who successfully applies the skills taught.) (Note: The above are rough wordings.)

	The A, B, C you will notice fit roughly into (A) BE, (B) DO, (C) HAVE.
	If the person has trouble with this, write BE, DO, HAVE on the worksheet.

(e) 	Find out if the person has had these confused one with another or if he is trying for A when his product was C, or any other mix-up.

	See if he has to first get a BE, then a DO to finally achieve a HAVE. When he has all this straight he should cognite on what product he is going for on his post, with VGIs.

(f) 	Tell the person that's it for the step and verify the products with a Product Officer. (Be sure it's a Product Officer who has had his Product Clearing. If this is THE Product Officer of the org, see if it compares to the Valuable Final Products of an Org [see HCO P/L 8 Nov 73RA, revised 9 Mar 74, "The VFPs and GDSs of the Divisions of an Org” .) If the products are not all right check the person on a Meter for Mis Us and do steps 1 and 2 again. If okay, proceed to Step 3.

STEP THREE

(a) 	Give the person HCO P/L 27 Nov 71, Executive Series No. 3 and HCO P/L 3 Dec 71 Executive Series 4. Have him read them.

(b) 	Return and do Method 4 on the P/Ls and clean up any Misunderstood Word. If these are found and looked up and used, then have the person read the P/Ls again.

(c) 	Now that the person has it, exchange objects with him. Have him now explain exchange until he sees clearly what it is.

STEP FOUR

(a) 	Now write his product on the left-hand side of your worksheet and draw an arrow from it to the right:

    	His Product 	------------------------>
    	And one to the left below it	<------------------------

	Have him tell you what, internally in the org, he could get in exchange for producing his product and getting it out.

   	Have him clear up why he might not get that.

(b) 	Have him look at a worksheet picture:

		Overt Act------------------->	Injury
		Injury <----------------------	Overt Act
   	SELF 	No Product----------------->	OTHERS
       		Nothing <-------------------	Nothing

   	as a cycle. Be sure he grasps that.

(c) 	Have him look at a worksheet picture:
           Overt Product -------------------->	Upset
           Upset <------------------------------	Overt

	And have him grasp that cycle.

(d) 	Now have him draw various such cycles having to do with the products he has been getting out. Such as:

	Bad product ----------------> Dissatisfied
	Bad feelings <---------------	Ethics

	But using various versions of products.

	Do this until he has it untangled and feels good.
(e) 	Have him write down his product on the left, arrow to the right, what comes back on the right and what occurs on the left.

	If he has this now, tell him that's fine.

STEP FIVE

(All in Big Clay Demos)

(a) 	Have him work out what theft is in terms of Exchange, and arrows.

(b) 	Have him show how his product contributes to the org's product.

(c) 	Have him work out how the org's product as relates to his division is then exchanged with society outside the org and Scn and what society exchanges back to the org.

(d) 	Have him work out how his product contributes to org's product outward and outside the org and Scn and then from the society outside back to the org and org back to him.

	This may have more than two vias each way.

(e) Have him work out the combined staff products into an org product and then out into the society and then the exchange back into the org and to CLOs and upper management and to org staff.

(f) When the Demos are all okay and BIG tell him that's fine and go on to next step.

STEP SIX

(Metered)

(a) 	Find out if person wants his product?  (not the Exchange).

	If not find out who might suppress it? and E/S times.

	Who might invalidate it? and earlier times.

	2wc it to F/N Cog VGIs.

(b) 	Establish now if the person wants his product.

	(If bogs turn over to a C/S and auditor for ruds and completion.)

STEP SEVEN

(Metered)

(a) 	Can the person get his product out?

(b) 	Handle by 2wc E/S to F/N.

STEP EIGHT

(Metered)

(a) 	What will his product be in volume?

	Is that enough to bother about or will it have to be in greater volume?
	
	What would be viable as to volume?

	Clean up RUSHED or Failures.

	To F/N Cog VGIs.
STEP NINE

(Metered)

(a) 	What quality would be necessary?
	Get various degrees of quality stated.

	What would he have to do to attain that quality?

	What volume could he attain?

	What would he have to do to attain that?

	To F/N Cog VGIs.

STEP TEN

(Metered)

(a) 	Can he get others to want the products he put out?

	What would he have to do to attain this?

STEP ELEVEN

(In BIG Clay)

(This is a progressive Clay Demo
added to at each step!)

(a) 	How does his product or products fit into the framework of his section? Requires he work out the section product if his is not it. Then fit his to it.

(b) 	How does his product fit into the Department? Requires he work out the Department's product and fit his to it if his is not the Dept's product.

(c) 	How does his product fit into the Division's products? He will have to work out the Div's product or consult HCO P/L 8 Nov 73FA revised 9 Mar 74, "The VFPs and GDSs of the Divisions of an Org".

(d) 	How does the Division's Product exchange with the Public? And for what?

(e) 	What happens to the org on this exchange?

STEP TWELVE

(In Big Clay)

(a) 	What blocks might he encounter in getting out his product?

(b) 	What can HE do about these?

STEP THIRTEEN

(2 wc)

(a) 	What does he have to have to get his product out? (Beware of too much have before he can do. Get him to cut it back so he is more causative.)

STEP FOURTEEN

(Written by Pc)

(a) 	What is his product on the 1st Dynamic—self?

	How does it fit in with what he is doing?

(b) 	What is his product on the 2nd Dynamic—family and sex?

	How does it fit in with what he is doing?

(c) 	What is his product on the 3rd Dynamic—Groups?

	How does it fit in with what he is doing?

(d) 	What is his product on the 4th Dynamic—Mankind?

	How does it fit in with what he is doing?

(e) 	What is his product on the 5th Dynamic—animal and vegetable kingdom?

	How does it fit in with what he is doing?

(f) 	What is his product on the 6th Dynamic—the Universe of Matter, Energy, Space and Time?

	How does it fit in with what he is doing?

(g) 	What is his product on the 7th Dynamic—beings as spirits—thetans?

	How does it fit in with what he is doing?

(h) 	What is his product on the 8th Dynamic—God or the Infinite or religion?

	How does it fit in with what he is doing?

(i) 	What is his post Product?

(j) 	Can he get it out now?

Est O or Product Clearer

Note this long form has to be run on leading executives and eventually on all staff. The short form in Est O Series 5, 14 points, series as a rapid action. Where there is any hang-up on the short form, send the person to an auditor. Where there is a hang-up on the long form, send the person to an auditor. The auditing action is to fly ruds on the RD and assess any key words the pc is upset about and do an 18 button prepcheck carrying each prepcheck button to F/N.

TA

Where the TA is already high do not attempt the short or long form.

Where the person turns on a rockslam check for rings on the hands. If so, remove rings. Note if R/S continues.

In either case the person should be programmed for TA trouble with C/S 53RRR and handled, and then given a GF40RR Method 3 (F/Ning each Question that reads) and then running the engrams with drugs run first.

Product Clearing is best done after Word Clearing No. 1 is successfully done.

An Est O who can use a meter and Method 4 WCing and knows Clay Demoing can do it.

HCO Bulletins are planned to be issued on this RD to handle it on rough ones or repair it as needed in the hands of an expert auditor.

LRH: mes.rd	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1972	Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 4 APRIL 1972

Remimeo
Establishment Officer Series 14

ETHICS

The normal level of an unhatted Dev-T non-producing org is out ethics.

The reason you see so many heavy ethics actions occurring—or situations where heavy ethics actions should occur if they aren’t—in such an org is that it has its EXCHANGE flows messed up.

It is important to know this fact as this factor alone can sometimes be employed to handle persons in the area whose ethics are out.

CRIMINALITY

Unless we want to go on living in a far nowhere some of the facts of scenes have to be confronted.

An inability to confront evil leads people into disregarding it or discounting it or not seeing it at all.

Reversely, there can be a type of person who, like an old-time preacher, sees nothing but evil in everything and, possibly looking into his own heart for a model, believes all men are evil.

Man, however (as you can read in HCO B 28 Nov 70, C/S Series 22, “Psychosis”), is basically good. When going upon some evil course he attempts to restrain himself and caves himself in.

The Chart of Human Evaluation in Science of Survival was right enough. And such people also can be found by the Oxford Capacity Analysis where the graph is low and well below a center line on the right.

This sort of thing can be handled of course by auditing but the Est O does not depend on that to handle his staff’s problems.

Criminal actions proceed from such people unless checked by more duress from without not to do an evil act than they themselves have pressure from within to do it.

Criminality is in most instances restrained by just such an imbalance of pressures.

If you have no ethics presence in an org, then criminality shows its head.

Such people lie rather than be made to confront. They false report—they even use “PR” which means Public Relations to cover up—and in our slang talk “PR” means putting up a lot of false reports to serve as a smoke screen for idleness or bad actions.

Unless you get Ethics in, you will never get Tech in. If you can’t get Tech in you won’t get Admin in.
So the lack of Ethics permits the criminal impulse to go unchecked.

Yes, it could be handled with Tech. But to get money you have to have Admin in.

Unless there is Ethics and ways to get it in, no matter how distasteful it may seem, you will never get Tech and Admin in.

Of course there is always the element of possible injustice. But this is provided against. (See HCO PL 24 Feb 72, “Injustice”.)

When Ethics is being applied by criminal hands (as happens in some governments) it can get pretty grim.

But even then Ethics serves as a restraint to just outright slaughter.

Omitting to handle criminality can make one as guilty of the resulting crimes as if one committed them!  So criminality as a factor has to be handled.

It is standardly handled by the basic Ethics P/Ls and the Ethics Officer system.

EXCHANGE

The unhatted unproducing staff member, who is not really a criminal or psychotic, can be made to go criminal.

This joins him to the Criminal ranks.

The Ethics system also applies to him.

However there is something an Est O can do about it that is truly Est O tech.

This lies in the field of EXCHANGE.

If you recall your Product Clearing, you will see that exchange is something for something.

Criminal exchange is nothing from the criminal for something from another.

Whether theft or threat or fraud is used, the criminal think is to get something without putting out anything. That is obvious.

A staff member can be coaxed into this kind of thinking by

PERMITTING HIM TO RECEIVE WITHOUT HIS CONTRIBUTING.

This unlocks, by the way, an age-old riddle of the philosophers as to “what is right or wrong”.

HONESTY is the road to SANITY. You can prove that and do prove it every time you make somebody well by “pulling his withholds”. The insane are just one seething mass of overt acts and withholds. And they are very physically sick people.

When you let somebody be dishonest you are setting him up to become physically ill and unhappy.

Traditional Sea Org Ethics labeled Non-Compliance as Liability and a False Report as Doubt. And it’s true enough.
When you let a person give nothing for something you are factually encouraging crime.

Don’t be surprised that welfare districts are full of robbery and murder. People there give nothing for something.

When exchange is out the whole social balance goes out.

Every full scholarship ever given by an org wound up in a messy scene.

When you hire a professional pc who just sits around making do-less motions while people audit him and contribute to him DO NOT BE SURPRISED IF HE GETS SICKER AND SICKER.

He is contributing nothing in return and winds up in overwhelm!

Similarly if you actively prevented someone from contributing in return you could also make him ARC Broken and sick.

It is EXCHANGE which maintains the inflow and outflow that gives a person space around him and keeps the bank off of him.

There are numbers of ways these flows of Exchange can be unbalanced.

It does not go same out as comes in. Equal amounts are no factor. Who can measure good will or friendship? Who can actually calculate the value of saving a being from death in each lifetime? Who can measure the reward of pride in doing a job well or praise?

For all these things are of different values to different people.

In the material world the person whose Exchange Factor is out may think he “makes money”. Only a government or a counterfeiter “makes money”. One has to produce something to Exchange for money.

Right there the Exchange Factor is out.

If he gives nothing in return for what he gets the money does not belong to him.

In product clearing many people it was found that some considered their food, clothing, bed and allowance were not theirs because they produced. They were theirs “just by being there”. This funny “logic” covered up the fact that these people produced little or nothing on post. Yet they were the first to howl when not getting expensive (to the org) auditing or courses or tech!

Thus such a person, not hatted or made to produce, will get ill.

It is interesting that when a person becomes productive his morale improves.

Reversely it should be rather plain to you that a person who doesn’t produce becomes mentally or physically ill. For his exchange factor is out.

So when you reward a downstat you not only deprive upstats, you also cave the downstat in!

I don’t think Welfare States have anything else in mind!

The riots of the ancient city of Rome were caused by these factors. There they gave away corn and games to a populace that eventually became so savage it could only enjoy torture and gruesome death in the arena!
A lot of this exchange imbalance comes from child psychology where the child is not contributing anything and is not permitted to contribute.

It is this which first overwhelms him with feelings of obligation to his parents and then bursts out as total revolt in his teens.

Children who are permitted to contribute (not as a cute thing to do but actually) make non-contributing children of the same age look like raving maniacs! It is the cruel sadism of modern times to destroy the next generation this way. Don’t think it isn’t intended. I have examined the OCAs of parents who do it!

So if a person is brought up this life with the exchange all awry, the Est O has his hands full sometimes!

He is dealing with trained-in criminality!

WHAT HE CAN DO

The remedy is rather simple.

First one has to know all about EXCHANGE as covered in the Product Clearing policy letters.

Then he has to specially clear this up with people who do not produce.

He should get them to work on it as it relates to ALL THEIR DYNAMICS IN RELATIONSHIP TO EVERY OTHER DYNAMIC.

That means he has to clear up the definitions of dynamics with care and then have the person draw a big chart (of his own) and say what he gives the 1st Dynamic and what it gives him. Then what he gives the second dynamic and what it gives him. And so on up the dynamics.

Now, have him consider “his own second dynamic”. What does his second dynamic give his first dynamic? What does his second dynamic give the second dynamic and what does it give him?

And so on until you have a network of these exchange arrows, each both ways.

Somewhere along the way, if your TRs are good and you have his attention and he is willing to talk to you he will have quite a cognition!

That, if it’s a big one is the End Phenomena of it.

And don’t be surprised if you see a person now and then change his physical face shape!

CONDITIONS BY DYNAMICS

An Ethics type “action” can be done by giving the person the conditions formulas (pages 189, 237, 245, 247, 249 of Vol 0, Basic Staff Hat. HCO PL 14 Mar 68—page 247—gives one the table.)

Method 4 the person on the Table of Conditions and pick up any other misunderstoods.

Have the person study the formula of each of these Conditions in the table so that he knows what they are and what the formulas are.
When he has all this now with no misunderstood words you must clear up the words related to his dynamics 1 to 8 and what they are.

Now you’re ready for the billion dollar question.

Ask him what is his condition on the first dynamic. Have him study the formulas. Don’t buy any glib PR.

Don’t evaluate or invalidate. When he’s completely sure of what his condition really is on the first dynamic he will cognite.

Now take up the second dynamic by its parts-sex, family, children. Get a Condition for each.

Similarly go on up each one of the dynamics until you have a condition for each one.

Now begin with the first dynamic again. Continue to work this way.

You will be amazed to find he will come out of false high down to low and back up again on each dynamic.

Somewhere along the line he will start to change markedly.

When you have a person in continual heavy ethics or who is out-ethics (Ethics bait, we say) and who is floundering around, you can do an S & D on him and quite often save his future for him.

When you have such a person you do this one first before you do the Exchange by Dynamics.

In other words, you use this on “Ethics bait” and then when he’s come out of such, you do Exchange by Dynamics on him.

SUMMARY

When all looks black, and you are getting false reports, and the things said done were not done and what was really being done were overt products and despite all your work, the stats just won’t go up, you still have three answers:

1. 	GET IN ETHICS ON THE ORG.

2. 	GET EXCHANGE DONE ON INDIVIDUALS.

3. 	GET IN CONDITIONS BY DYNAMICS ON THE ETHICS BAIT.

And after that keep a strong just Division 1 Dept 3.

You’ll be amazed!

	L. RON HUBBARD
	Founder

LRH:sb.rd	                     
Copyright © 1972
by L. Ron Hubbard	
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED	

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 9 APRIL 1972
Remimeo
ETHICS

(Cancels HCO P/L of 7 Feb 70
“Danger Condition 2nd Formula”)

CORRECT DANGER CONDITION
HANDLING

When the correct formula for handling a Danger Condition is not done, an org or activity or person cannot easily get above that condition thereafter.

When we had the 2nd Danger Formula apparently it was applied but the real Danger Formula wasn’t. This made some orgs and people remain in or below Danger and made it very hard for them to get above that state.

A prolonged state of emergency or threats to viability or survival or a prolonged single-handing will not improve unless the actual Danger Formula is applied.

DANGER FORMULA
The original formula follows:

1. 	By-pass (ignore the junior or juniors normally in charge of the activity and handle
	it personally).
2. 	Handle the situation and any danger in it.
3. 	Assign the area where it had to be handled a Danger Condition.
4. 	Handle the personnel by Ethics Investigation and Comm Ev.
5. 	Reorganize the activity so that the situation does not repeat.
6. 	Recommend any firm policy that will hereafter detect and/or prevent the
	condition from recurring.

The senior executive present acts and acts according to the formula above. A Danger Condition is normally assigned when:

1. 	An emergency condition has continued too long.
2. 	A statistic plunges downward very steeply.
3. 	A senior executive suddenly finds himself or herself wearing the hat of the
	activity because it is in trouble.

FIRST DYNAMIC FORMULA

	The formula is converted for the 1st dynamic to

1st 1. 	By-pass habits or normal routines.
1st 2. 	Handle the situation and any Danger in it.
1st 3. 	Assign self a Danger Condition.
1st 4. 	Get in your own personal ethics by finding what you are doing that is out-ethics
 	and use self-discipline to correct it and get honest and straight.
1st 5. 	Reorganize your life so that the dangerous situation is not continually happening
 	to you.
1st 6. 	Formulate and adopt firm policy that will hereafter detect and prevent the same
 	situation from continuing to occur.

JUNIOR DANGER FORMULA

Where a Danger Condition is assigned to a junior, request that he or she or the entire activity write up his or her overts and withholds and any known out-ethics situation and turn them in at a certain stated time on a basis that the penalty for them will be lessened but if discovered later after the deadline it will be doubled.

This done, require that the junior and the staff that had to be by-passed and whose work had to be done for them or continually corrected, each one write up and fully execute the FIRST DYNAMIC DANGER FORMULA for himself personally and turn it in.

ASSESSMENT

If the necessity to by-pass continues or if an area or person did not comply, use a meter and assess or get assessed the following questionnaire.

THE TROUBLE AREA
QUESTIONNAIRE

__________________________	______________________	_________________
	Person’s Name 	Post	Date

To be done on the person by one who can correctly operate a meter.

The list is done by telling the person you are about to ask him some questions on a meter and then just assess this list for reads.

Mark each read properly.

(a)	 Are you doing anything dishonest? 	_________
(b)	 Are you more interested in something else than your job? 	_________
(c)	 Are you falsely reporting about anything? 	_________
(d)	 Are you doing something harmful? 	_________
(e)	 Are you doing little or nothing of value? 	_________
(f)	 Are you pretending? 	_________
(g)	 Are you in disagreement with something? 	_________
(h)	 Do you have overts? 	_________
(i)	 Are you withholding something? 	_________
(j)	 Do you know of some out-ethics around you? 	_________
(k)	 Don’t you know what your post product is? 	_________
(l)	 Are the products of others around you unknown to you? 	_________
(m)	 Do you have things about your post you don’t understand? 	_________
(n)	 Do you have words on your post you don’t understand? 	_________
(o)	 Don’t you know grammar? 	_________
(p)	 Is there some reason you are not quite on post? 	_________
(q)	 Is someone giving you orders you don’t understand? 	_________
(r)	 Are you getting orders from too many places? 	_________
(s)	 Don’t you have a post? 	_________
(t)	 Don’t you know what your post is? 	_________
(u)	 Have you really not read your hat? 	_________
(v)	 Are you here for some other reason than you say? 	_________
(w)	 Were you planning to leave? 	_________
(x)	 Is your post temporary? 	_________
(y)	 What about your post purpose? 	_________
(z)	 Are you in any way misemotional or upset about your post? 	_________
aa)	 Are you actually doing fine?	_________

When this has been assessed on a meter one then takes the largest read or TA blowdown and handles it.

This is done by writing the question letter and the person’s answers.

Each question that read is given two-way communication until each question that read has attained a floating needle.

The form used and the worksheets are placed in the person’s folder so that other handling can be programmed and done as needed.

__________________________________
                                       	Operator’s Name

Probable WHY______________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

WHY 

The above questionnaire can also be used to help  find a WHY (it will not directly find one as the Why has to be rephrased for each individual). A WHY should always be found for individuals in a Danger Condition.

TROUBLE AREA SHORT FORM

__________________________	______________________	_________________
	Person’s Name 	Post	Date

	A short form can be done on someone who is an “old hand” and knows the tune.

SF 1.	 Out-Ethics?	__________
SF 2.	 Overts?	__________
SF 3.	 Withholds?	__________
SF 4.	 Disagreements?	__________
SF 5.	 False Reports?	__________
SF 6.	 Product Unknown?	__________
SF 7.	 Products of others Unknown?	__________
SF 8.	 Post purpose?	__________
SF 9.	 Situations not understood?	__________
SF 10.	 Misunderstood words?	__________
SF 11.	 Misunderstood grammar?	__________
SF 12.	 Wrong WHY?	__________
SF 13.	 Omitted materials?	__________
SF 14.	 Misemotional?	__________
SF 15.	 False passes?	__________
SF 16.	 Invalidation?	__________
SF 17.	 Wrong Orders?	__________
SF 18.	 Not understood?	__________
SF 19.	 No situation?	__________
SF 20.	 Doing fine really?	__________
	(Handling is the same as in the long form.)

Probable WHY______________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________
Operator 

ENDING A DANGER CONDITION When production has again increased the Danger Condition should be formally ended and an Emergency Condition assigned and its formula should be followed.

	L. RON HUBBARD
	Founder

LRH: mes.rd	
Copyright © 1972	
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 3 MAY 1972
Remimeo
Executive
Hats	         IMPORTANT

Executive Series 12

ETHICS AND EXECUTIVES

Any person holding an Executive Post (head of Department or above) is deemed an EXECUTIVE.

Evaluation has revealed that the breakdown in many orgs is a failure on the part of Executives to wear their Ethics and Justice hats.

It has been found that below Administrative Whys there is usually an Ethics situation as well which unhandled, causes the Administrative Why not to function or raise stats.

In an area which is downstat, it is the duty of an Executive to investigate and find any out-ethics situation and get it corrected.

Ethics is a personal thing in relation to a group. Unethical people are those who do not have Ethics in on themselves personally.

It is the responsibility of the Executive to see to it that persons under his control and in his area get their personal ethics in and keep them in.

Dishonesty, false reports, an out-ethics personal life, should be looked for and by persuasion, should be corrected.

When an Executive sees such things he or she must do all he can to get the person to get his own Ethics in.

When an area is downstat the Executive must at once suspect an out-ethics scene with one or more of the personnel and must investigate and persuade the person to be more honest and ethical and correct the out-ethics condition found.

If this does not correct and if the person or area remains downstat, the Executive must declare the person or area in Danger and apply HCO PL 9 Apr 72 “CORRECT DANGER CONDITION HANDLING”.

The situation, if it does not correct, thereafter becomes a matter of full group justice with Courts and Comm Evs. Persons whose Ethics have remained out must be replaced.

The seniors of an Executive are bound to enforce this policy and to use it on any Executives whose personal ethics are out and who fail to apply it. It will be found that those who do not apply this policy letter have themselves certain dishonesties or out-ethics situations.

IT IS VITAL TO ANY ORGANIZATION, TO BE STRONG AND EFFECTIVE, TO BE ETHICAL.

THE MOST IMPORTANT ZONE OF ETHICAL CONDUCT IN AN ORGANIZATION IS AT OR NEAR THE TOP.

Ethical failure at the top or just below it can destroy an organization and make it downstat.

Historical examples are many.

THEREFORE IT IS POLICY THAT AN EXECUTIVE MUST KEEP ETHICS IN ON HIMSELF AND THOSE BELOW HIM OR BE DISCIPLINED OR COMM EVED AND REMOVED FROM ANY POST OF AUTHORITY AND SOMEONE FOUND WHO IS HIMSELF ETHICAL AND CAN KEEP ETHICS IN ON THOSE UNDER HIS AUTHORITY.

The Charge in any such case for a staff member or Executive is FAILURE TO UPHOLD OR SET AN EXAMPLE OF HIGH ETHICAL STANDARDS.

Such offenses are composed of:

1. 	DISHONESTY.

2. 	Use of false statements to cover up a situation.

3. 	Representing a scene to be different than it actually is to cover up crimes and escape discipline.

4. 	Irregular 2D connections and practices.

5. 	Drug or alcoholic addiction.

6. 	Encouraging out-ethics.

7. 	Condoning or failing to effectively handle an out-ethics situation in self or others as an In Charge, Officer or Executive.

TECHNICAL

People with out-ethics withholds cannot see. This is proven by the brilliant return of perception of the environment in people audited effectively and at length on such processes.

Such people also seek to place a false environment there and actually see a false environment.

People whose Ethics are low will enturbulate and upset a group as they are seeking to justify their harmful acts against the group. And this leads to more harmful acts.

Out-ethics people go rapidly into Treason against the group.

A person whose Ethics have been out over a long period goes “out of valence”. They are “not themselves”.

Happiness is only attained by those who are HONEST with themselves and others.

A group prospers only when each member in it has his own personal ethics in.

Even in a PTS (Potential Trouble Source) person there must have been out-ethics conduct toward the suppressive personality he or she is connected with for the person to have become PTS in the first place.

People who are physically ill are PTS and are out-ethics toward the person or thing they are PTS to!

Thus a group to be happy and well, and for the group to prosper and endure, its individual members must have their own Ethics in.

It is up to the Executive or Officer to see that this is the case and to DO the actions necessary to make it come about and the group an Ethical group.

Exec or Officer’s Steps
for Getting In Ethics
on a Staff Member

STEP ONE

Inform the person personally he is in Danger Condition by reason of acts or omissions, downstats, false reports or absence or 2D or whatever the circumstances are.

He is in fact IN danger because somebody is going to act sooner or later to hit him.

He may be involved already in some other assignment of Condition.

But this is between you and him.

HE IS IN DANGER BECAUSE YOU ARE HAVING TO BY-PASS HIM TO GET HIS ETHICS IN, A THING HE SHOULD DO HIMSELF.

If he cooperates and completes this rundown and it comes out all right you will help him.

If he doesn’t cooperate you will have to use group justice procedures.

This is his chance to get Ethics in on himself with your help before he really crashes.

When he accepts this fact, Step 1 is done. Go to Step 2.

STEP 2

Ethics is gotten in by definition on the person.

GET IN THE DEFINITIONS FULLY UNDERSTOOD.

The following words must be Method 4 Word Cleared on all the words and the words in their definitions on the person being handled.

“ETHICS: The study of the general nature of morals (morals [plural] [noun]: The principles of right and wrong conduct) and the specific moral choices to be made by the individual in his relationship with others.

“The rules or standards governing the conduct of the members of a profession.”

“JUSTICE: 1. Moral rightness; equity. 2. Honor; fairness. 3. Good reason. 4. Fair handling; due reward or treatment. 5. The administration and procedure of the law.”
“FALSE: Contrary to fact or truth; without grounds; incorrect. Without meaning or sincerity; deceiving. Not keeping faith. Treacherous. Resembling and being identified as a similar or related entity.”
“DISHONEST: Disposed to lie, cheat, defraud or deceive.”

“PRETENSE: A false reason or excuse. A mere show without reality.”

“BETRAY: To be disloyal or faithless to.”

“OUT-ETHICS: An action or situation in which an individual is involved contrary to the ideals and best interests of his group. An act or situation or relationship contrary to the ethics standards, codes or ideals of the group or other members of the group. An act of omission or commission by an individual that could or has reduced the general effectiveness of a group or its other members. An individual act of omission or commission which impedes the general well-being of a group or impedes it in achieving its goals.”

Do not go to Step 3 of this until all the above words are cleared by Method 4 Word Clearing.

STEP 3

Ask the person what out-ethics situation he or she is involved in.

It may take the person some time to think of it or he may suppress it and be afraid to say it for fear of consequences. Reassure him that you are only trying to help him.

He may have brought it up in a session but did not apply it as out-ethics. Coax him through this.

If his conduct and actions are poor or downstat, he for sure will be able to come up with an out-ethics personal scene.

Sometimes the person is secretly PTS and is connected to a suppressive or antagonistic person or group or thing. In such an instance he will rollercoaster as a case or on post or have accidents or be ill frequently. (See PTS tech for material on this and for future handling. Checksheet HCO PL 9 April 72 [Revised] “Correct Danger Condition Handling”, but go on handling with these steps.)

Sometimes the person just uses PR (brags it up and won’t come clean). In this case, an auditing session is required.

If the person gets involved in self listing get him audited on HCO B 20 Apr 72, C/S Series 78, which gives the auditing session procedure. A person can become very upset over a wrong item. It is easily repaired but it must be repaired if this happens.

By your own 2wc or whatever means or repair get this Step 3 to a clearcut out-ethics situation, clearly stated. Do not forget to go on with this eventually if there is a delay in completing it. GIs will be in if correct.

STEP 4

Have the person work out how the out-ethics situation in which he or she is involved would be a betrayal of the group or make them false to the group or its ideals.

Do not make the person guilty. Just get them to see it themselves.

When they have seen this clearly and have cognited on it completely go to next step.

STEP 5
The person is now ready to apply the FIRST DYNAMIC DANGER FORMULA to himself.

Give him this formula and explain it to him.

FIRST DYNAMIC FORMULA

The formula is converted for the 1st dynamic to:

1st 1. 	By-pass habits or normal routines.

1st 2. 	Handle the situation and any danger in it.

1st 3. 	Assign self a danger condition.

1st 4. 	Get in your own personal ethics by finding what you are doing that is out ethics and use self-discipline to correct it and get honest and straight.

1st 5. 	Reorganize your life so that the dangerous situation is not continually happening to you.

1st 6. 	Formulate and adopt firm policy that will hereafter detect and prevent the same situation from continuing to occur.

Now usually the person is already involved in another group situation of downstats or overt products or bad appearance or low conditions, Courts, Comm Evs for something.

It does not matter what other condition he was in. From you he is in Danger.

So 1st 1 and 1st 2 above apply to the group situation he finds himself in.

He has to assign himself a Danger Condition as he recognizes now he has been in danger from himself.

1st 4 has been begun by this rundown.

It is up to him or her to finish off 1st 4 by applying the material in Steps 2 and 3. He or she has to use self-discipline to correct his own out-ethics scene and get it honest and straight, with himself and the group.

1st 5 is obvious. If he doesn’t, he will just crash again.

1st 6. In formulating and adopting firm policy he must be sure it aligns with the group endeavor.

When he has worked all this out AND DEMONSTRATED IT IN LIFE, he has completed the personal danger rundown.

He can then assign himself Emergency and follow the Emergency Formula (HCO PL 23 Sept 67, Pg 189-190 Vol 0 OEC, “Emergency”).

STEP 6

Review the person and his stats and appearance and personal life.

Satisfy yourself that the steps above and the out-ethics found were all of it. That no wrong item has been found. That the person is not PTS.

Handle what you find. But if you find that the person did not improve and gave it all a brush-off, you must now take the group’s point of view and administer group justice.

Your protection of the person is at end because he had his chance and is apparently one of those people who depend on others to keep his Ethics in for him and can’t keep them in himself. So use group justice procedures thereafter.

If the person made it and didn’t fall on his head and is moving on up now AS SHOWN BY HONEST STATS AND CONDITION OF HIS POST, you have had a nice win and things will go much much better.

And that’s a win for everybody.

	L. RON HUBBARD 
	Founder 
LRH:mes.rd 
Copyright © 1972 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 10 MAY 1972

Remimeo
ROBOTISM

(Reference HCOB 28 Nov 1970, C/S Series 22,
“Psychosis” . )

A technical advance has been made in relation to the inactivity, slowness or incompetence of human beings.

This discovery proceeds from a two and a half year intense study of aberration as it affects the ability to function as a group member.

The ideal group member is capable of working causatively in full cooperation with his fellows in the achievement of group goals and the realization of his own happiness.

The primary human failing is an inability to function as himself or contribute to group achievements.

Wars, political upsets, organizational duress, growing crime rates, increasingly heavy “justice”, growing demands for excessive welfare, economic failure and other age long and repeating conditions find a common denominator in the inability of human beings to coordinate.

The current political answer, in vogue in this century and growing, is totalitarianism where the state orders the whole life of the individual. The production figures of such states are very low and their crimes against the individual are numerous.

A discovery therefore of what this factor is, that makes the humanoid the victim of oppression, would be a valuable one.

The opening lines of Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health comment on Man’s lack of an answer for himself.

The group needs such an answer in order to survive and for its individual members to be happy.

SCALE

NEEDING ORDERS

The exact mechanism of needing orders is to be found as an outgrowth of the mental condition outlined in HCOB 28 Nov 1970, “Psychosis”.

The individual with an evil purpose has to withhold himself because he may do destructive things.

When he fails to withhold himself he commits overt acts on his fellows or other dynamics and occasionally loses control and does so.

This of course makes him quite inactive.

To overcome this he refuses any responsibility for his own actions.

Any motion he makes must be on the responsibility of others.

He operates then only when given orders.

Thus he must have orders to operate.

Therefore one could term such a person a robot. And the malady could be called robotism.

PERCEPTION

Studies of perception undertaken since HCOB 28 Nov 70 reveal that sight, hearing and other channels of awareness decrease in proportion to the number of overt acts—and therefore withholds—which the person has committed on the whole track.

By relieving these sight has been remarkably brightened.

Therefore a person who is withholding himself from committing overt acts because of his own undesired purposes has very poor perception.

He does not see the environment around him.

Thus, combined with his unwillingness to act on his own initiative, there is a blindness to the environment.

OVERT PRODUCTS
(see P/L 14 Nov 70, Org Series 14)

Since he does not act upon orders he is taking responsibility for, he executes orders without fully understanding them.

Further he executes them in an environment he does not see.

Thus when forced to produce he will produce overt products. These are called so because they are not in actual fact useful products but something no one wants and are overt acts in themselves—such as inedible biscuits or a “repair” that is just further breakage.

SLOWNESS

The person is slow because he is moving on other-determinism, is carefully withholding himself and cannot see anyway.

Thus he feels lost, confused or unsafe and cannot move positively.

Because he produces overt products he gets slapped around or goes unthanked and so begins a decline.

He cannot move swiftly and if he does has accidents. So he teaches himself to be careful and cautious.

JUSTICE

Group justice is of some use but all it really does is make the person withhold himself even harder and while a necessary restraint, nevertheless does not itself bring a lasting improvement.

Threats and “heads on a pike” (meaning examples of discipline) do however jar the person into giving his attention and channeling his actions into a more desirable path from the group viewpoint.

Justice is necessary in a society of such people but it is not a remedy for improvement.

MALICE

Despite the viciousness of the truly insane, there is little or no real malice in the robot.

The truly insane cannot control or withhold their evil purposes and dramatize them at least covertly.

The insane are not always visible. But they are visible enough. And they are malicious.

The robot on the other hand does control his evil impulses to a great extent.

He is not malicious.

His danger mainly stems from the incompetent things he does, the time of others he consumes, the waste of time and material and the brakes he puts on the general group endeavor.

He does not do all these things intentionally. He does not really know he is doing them.

He looks in wounded surprise at the wrath he generates when he breaks things, wrecks programs and gets in the way. He does not know he is doing these things. For he cannot see that he is. He may go along for some time doing (slowly wasteful) well and then carelessly smashes the exact thing that wrecks the whole activity.

People suppose he cunningly intended to do so. He seldom does.

He winds up even more convinced he can’t be trusted and that he should withhold harder!

FALSE REPORTS

The robot gives many false reports. Unable to see, how can he know what is true?

He seeks to fend off wrath and attract good will by “PR” (public relations boasts) without realizing he is giving false reports.

MORALE

The robot goes into morale declines easily. Since production is the basis of morale, and since he does not really produce much, left to his own devices, his morale sags heavily.

PHYSICAL INERTIA

The body is a physical object. It is not the being himself.

As a body has mass it tends to remain motionless unless moved and tends to keep going in a certain direction unless steered.

As he is not really running his body, the robot has to be moved when not moving or diverted if moving on a wrong course.

Thus anyone with one or more of such beings around him tends to get exhausted with shoving them into motion or halting them when they go wrong.

Exhaustion only occurs when one does not understand the robot.

It is the exasperation that exhausts one.

With understanding one is not exasperated because he can handle the situation. But only if he knows what it is.

PTS

Potential Trouble Sources are not necessarily robots.

A PTS person generally is withholding himself from a Suppressive Person or group or thing.

Toward that SP person or group or thing he is a robot! He takes orders from them if only in opposites.

His overts on the SP person make him blind and non-self-determined.

BASIC WHY

The basic reason behind persons who cannot function, are slow or inactive or incompetent and who do not produce is

WITHHOLDING SELF FROM DOING DESTRUCTIVE THINGS, AND THUS UNWILLING TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY AND THEREFORE NEEDING ORDERS.

The exact wording of this WHY must be done by the individual himself after examining and grasping this principle.

If one writes this principle down on the top of a sheet and then asks the person to word it exactly as it applies to himself one will attain the individual why for inaction and incompetence. It will produce GIs and F/N at the Examiner.

PROCESSING

Physical work in the physical universe, general confronting, reach and withdraw; and Objective Processes go far in remedying this condition.

Touch assists regularly and correctly given to proper End Phenomena will handle illnesses of such persons.

Word Clearing is vital tech to open the person’s comm lines, wipe out earlier misunderstoods and increase his understanding.

PTS tech will handle the person’s robotism toward SP individuals, groups or things. To this and the PTS Rundown can be added the WHY above as it relates to the things or beings found as suppressive as a last step.

The why above can be used in Danger Formula work such as HCO P/L 9 April 72, Correct Danger Formula, and HCO P/L 3 May 72, “Ethics and Executives”. Other individual whys can exist in these instances.

EXPANDED DIANETICS

The miracle of well done perfectly executed Expanded Dianetics eradicates both insanity and robotism. Drug handling and other actions may be necessary.

END PRODUCT

The end product when one has fully handled robotism is not a person who cannot follow orders or who operates solely on his own.

Totalitarian states fear any relief of the condition as they foolishly actively promote and hope for such beings. But this is only a deficiency in their own causes and their lack of experience with fully self-determined beings. Yet education, advertising and amusements have been designed only for robots. Even religions existed to suppress “Man’s Evil Nature”.

Lacking any examples or understanding many have feared to free the robot to his own control and think even with horror on it.

But you see, beings are NOT basically robots. They are miserable when they are.

Basically they prosper only when they are self-determined and can be pandetermined to help in the prosperity of all.

LRH:sb.bh 	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1972 	Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 20 JULY 1972
Issue II

Remimeo
DISTRACTIVE AND ADDITIVE QUESTIONS
AND ORDERS

Recently there have come up many instances of auditors asking odd non-process questions while “doing a process” and giving odd orders.

Example: While running a process an auditor also kept asking, “Is your attention on something else?”

This is of course a daffy thing to do. The auditor’s TRs or metering go out. Then the auditor badgers the pc with strange irrelevant questions. These are distractions, nothing more nor less. Not all the silly questions in the world substitute for lack of TRs and proper metering. A question about “What else are you doing?” does not substitute for having by-passed an F/N or running an uncharged item.

Giving Orders that are not part of any process is very bad.

Example: Auditor has missed a read, by-passed an F/N and goofing it generally. Pc gets dull, disinterested. Auditor says, “Come back into the room!”

Evaluation fits into this set of bad tricks. Like, “You are really OT you know. You just think you’re aberrated.” Or “You better tell the Examiner you are really Clear.” Or “You are in pretty bad shape unless you can see the whole building.” These of course are suppressive Evaluations.

In 1950 there was a general observation. ALL AUDITORS TALK TOO MUCH.

As we seem to be in a period of additive questions and comments, the observation can be made again.

MUZZLED auditing means stating only the model session patter and Commands and TRs. It ALWAYS gets the best results.

Do NOT add a lot of questions or orders to a session to cover up goofs in standard tech.

Standard Tech works. Use it and it only.

                                        	L. RON HUBBARD
                                        	Founder

LRH:nt.rd 
Copyright © 1972 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
 Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 15 NOVEMBER l 973R
REVISED 4 DECEMBER 1973
(Revisions in this type style)
Remimeo
Tech
FEAR OF PEOPLE LIST—R

TO BE DONE ONLY BY AUDITORS WHOSE EYESIGHT, METER POSITION AND TR 1 HAVE BEEN CHECKED OUT AND WHO CAN THEREFORE MAKE A LIST   READ ON A PC, SEE THE READ AND MARK IT.

This action is primarily for use in Qual to handle timid tech staff who back off from handling thetans or people or pcs or psychos or individuals. It may also be used on public and as part of Integrity Processing.

ASSESSMENT LISTS

    	TERMINALS LIST	EMOTIONS LIST

People	_________	Blaming (item assessed)	_________
Thetans	_________	Failures with	_________
Pcs	_________	Apathetic about	_________
Psychos	_________	Neglect of	_________
Individuals	_________	Hopelessness regarding	_________
Others	_________	Propitiation toward	_________
Girls	_________	Terrified of	_________
Women	_________	Desperation about	_________
Men	_________	Fear of 	_________
Boys	_________	Afraid of creating a bad	
Children	_________	effect on 	_________
Addicts	_________	Afraid of consequences
PTSes	_________	Regarding 	_________
Older People	_________	Fear of invalidation by	_________
Seniors	_________	Fear of doing something
Important People	_________	wrong with 	_________
		Fear of being found out
		by	_________
		Fear of failure with 	_________
		Afraid to take responsibility
		for	_________
		Anxious about	_________
		Pretense concerning	_________
		Unwilling to help	_________
		Contempt for	_________
		Anger at	_________
		Hatred of	_________
		Suppressing	_________

HANDLING STEPS

1. 	Assess the TERMINALS LIST.

2. 	Using best reading item from the TERMINALS LIST assess the EMOTIONS LIST. (Example: If “Girls” gave best read on TERMINALS LIST, then assess EMOTIONS LIST using “Girls”—”Blaming Girls _”  “Failures with Girls” etc.)

3. 	Take best reading item from EMOTIONS LIST assessment. Run item R3-R triple to F/N Cog VGIs and erasure.

4. 	Proceed to handle (R3-R) each reading item from EMOTIONS LIST assessment in descending order of reads (largest to smallest read).

5. 	Repeat 2 to 4 with each reading item from the original TERMINALS assessment.

6. 	When all reading items from both assessments handled, reassess the TERMINALS LIST and repeat steps 2 to 5 on any items now reading.

7. 	This may be continued to an F/Ning Terminals List but somewhere along the line pc should have major cognition with wide F/N and statement to the effect that he no longer has any fear or back-off from people, thetans, pcs, psychos, or individuals. End off at such a point.

8. 	Note that the charge on a terminal could be blown on R3-R on major reading item from the Emotions List. In such a case the other reading items from the emotions assessment would F/N when taken up. This would be most likely to occur if “Fear of . . .” is run to good cog and then further reading “Fear” or “Afraid of” items are attempted.

9. 	Should the person R/S on assessment or handling just continue the action through to EP in the usual way but circle the R/S, note in front of folder and on Auditor Report for later handling.

10. 	Whether done in Qual or Tech the assessment sheets, worksheets and auditor report sheets must go into the pc folder and be recorded on the summary sheet.

EP of the action is thetans or people or pcs or psychos or individuals, etc solved and the person gotten off of any irrational back-off. We are in the thetan and people business after all.

                                        	L. RON HUBBARD
                                        	Founder

LRH: nt.rd 
Copyright © 1973 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 21 NOVEMBER 1973

Remimeo
All Auditors
All Levels
Flag Internes
LRH Comms

THE CURE OF Q AND A
MAN’S DEADLIEST DISEASE

Q and A is a dreadful malady which has to be cured before an Auditor (or an Administrator) can get results.

THE DISEASE OF Q AND A

Auditor: Spot that wall. Pc: My neck hurts. Auditor: Has it been hurting long? Pc: Ever since I was in the Army. Auditor: Are you in the Army now? Pc: No but my father is. Auditor: Have you been in comm with your father lately? Pc: I miss him. Auditor: That F/Ned, end of process. The Auditor has failed to note that he never  got the pc to spot the wall or that he has run the pc all over the track flattening nothing, restimulating the pc.

A DEADLY BACTERIA

When an Auditor asks a Question and F/Ns something else he can mess a pc up badly.

Auditor: Do you have a withhold? That reads. Pc: It’s just a 2D perversion. What I was really thinking about was my raise I got today. Auditor: That F/Ns. Pc (later in session): You run a lousy org here. Charge too much .... Auditor in mystery, caves in. THAT IS SIMPLY Q AND A IN ANOTHER COAT.

ADMINISTRATIVE DELIRIUM

When an Administrator Qs and As it puts him straight down the org board and into a spin.

LRH Comm: You have a target here to move the file cases. Staff Member: I didn’t understand some of the words. LRH Comm: Here’s a word clearing order for Qual. (Next day.) LRH Comm: Did you go to the word clearer? Staff Member: I’m on Medical Lines now. LRH Comm: How long have you been ill? Staff Member: Since the Ethics Officer was mean to me. LRH Comm: I’ll go see about your ethics folder ....

And there goes the old soccer game. NO TARGET DONE BECAUSE THE EXECUTIVE COULD NOT HANDLE Q AND A.

C/S Q AND A

Case Supervisors (blush for the thought) are often guilty of Q and A and infect their area with its bacteria.
Pc to Examiner: I have a cold. C/S: Run spot spots to cure his cold. Pc to Auditor: It’s really I’m PTS to my Aunt. C/S: Do PTS RD on Aunt. Pc to Examiner: It’s really my foot. C/S: Do touch assist on foot ....

What C/S ever got a pc’s program done that way?

Where you find undone programs in folders you find goofing Auditors and Q and A type Case Supervisors.

FUMIGATION

There are definite cures for this dreadful and disgraceful malady. It must be handled as it results in a breaking out of bogged cases and blows, high and low TAs and very red faces when the Paid Completions Stat is counted.

The Cure is pretty violent and very few have courage enough to go through with it as their confront at the beginning is too low, what with their no-interest items left in restim on their drug rundowns or no TRs to begin with or no Supervisor when they took the Course.

The direct result of all this is a symptom known as “patty-cake”. This is a child game of clapping hands and putting palms together and has meant since 1950 Dianetics NOT HANDLING CASES. The signs of patty-cake are a weak slouching posture, bags under the eyes, a bowed spine and hangdog pathetic eyes. The respiration is quick and panicky, the palms sweat and. one starts at pins dropping in the next room.

However for those sturdy souls who want to Clear a planet and who really want to handle things they can prop themselves up in bed and somehow get through this program:

1. 	This HCOB starrate.	_________

2. 	HCOB 24 May 62 “Q and A” starrate.	_________

3. 	HCOB 13 Dec 61 “Varying Sec Check Questions”.	_________

4. 	HCOB 22 Feb 62 “Withholds, Missed and Partial”.	_________

5. 	HCOB 29 Mar 63 “Summary of Security Checking”.	_________

6. 	HCOB 7 Apr 64 “All Levels—Q and A”.	_________

7. 	TRs the Hard Way.	_________

8. 	Upper Indoc a Rough Way.	_________

9. 	Handling the Auditor’s, C/S’s or Administrator’s Not Done	 
	or No Interest item Drug RD.	_________

10. 	35 hours Op Pro by Dup in Co-Audit receiving and giving.	_________

11. 	HCOB 29 July 63 “Saint Hill Special Briefing Course 
	Training Drills”, Section “Q and A Drill”.	_________

12. 	HCOB 20 Nov 73 Issue I Anti-Q and A Drill.

13. 	HCOB 20 Nov 73 Issue II “F/N What You Ask or Program”.	_________

14. 	A final end result demonstrated that the person CAN SEE 
	SITUATIONS AND HANDLE THEM.	_________
For, of course, the reason the person Qs and As is that he can’t confront or see the existing scene and so can’t handle it.

Q and A is the DISEASE OF DODGING LIFE.

When such a person tries to get a question or program done and the other person says or does something else, the Q and Aer goes into a sort of overwhelm or cave-in and just rides along at effect.

PEOPLE WHO GET THINGS DONE ARE AT CAUSE. When they are not, they Q and A.

Thus it IS a kind of illness. Chronic Overwhelm. It is NOT cured by drugs or electric shocks or brain operations.

It is cured by making oneself strong enough in confront and handle to live!

                                        	L. RON HUBBARD
                                        	Founder

LRH:ntjh 
Copyright © 1973 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 23 NOVEMBER 1973
Remimeo
Tech & Qual
All Levels
All Tech Checksheets	
DRY AND WET HANDS
MAKE FALSE TA

A couple of years ago some auditors were solving high TA problems by putting hand cream on the pc’s hands when they were calloused and talcum powder on a pc’s hands when they were too wet. Since no research had been done they were censured.

Research has now been done on this matter of dry and wet hands.

Apparently when a person has taken certain medicines or chemicals, or uses detergent soaps or is in contact with certain chemicals (such as those in some furniture polishes) the ordinary skin oils vanish. These oils are needed to make an electrical contact with the cans.

When these oils are absent, there is no adequate electrical contact and the “TA is High”.

When a person is deficient in certain minerals or vitamins such as magnesium or B complex, his hands can be excessively wet.

Either of these two conditions in hands or feet can produce an incorrect TA position.

The dry condition produces a false high TA.

The overly wet condition produces a false low TA.

The TA depends on normally moist hands. This does not mean the meter works on “sweat”. It does mean the meter works only when there is a correct electrical contact.

Too much and too greasy hand cream could produce too low a TA.

Too much powder or drier could produce too high a TA.

Therefore one must not go to extremes.

DRY HANDS

The excessively “dry” hand is seen as shiny or polished looking. It feels very dry.

The correct treatment is to use a “vanishing cream” (obtainable from any cosmetics store) not a greasy hand cream.

The “vanishing cream” is so called because it rubs all the way into the skin and leaves no excess grease.

This restores normal electrical contact.

There are many such creams. It makes no difference which is used so long as it vanishes into the skin.
It is doubtful if it would have to be applied more than once—at session start—as it lasts for a long while.

This would apply to some footplate cases as well (whose hands are defective or too heavily calloused).
If a cream leaves smears on a can, it is too heavily applied or too little absorbed.

Vanishing type cream is usually smeared on, rubbed in and can then be thoroughly wiped off. The hands (or feet) will usually produce, then, a normal TA and meter response.

WET HANDS

Anti-perspirants can be applied to too wet hands. There are many brands of these, often a powder or spray.

It can be wiped off after application and should work for two or three hours.

It can be applied to hands or feet (for footplates).

If the TA then goes too high, use vanishing cream on top of it.

SUMMARY

While much work could be done still, the above is enough for a practical result.

WARNING

Hi TAs and Lo TAs do not widely F/N. If you are getting wide persistent F/N with the TA too high (above 3) or too low (below 2) you have a pc whose hands are too dry or too wet. Using this HCO B should correct it and in future sessions you should continue the remedy on that pc.

NOTHING in this HCO B excuses the misreading or falsifying of a TA. Get the TA in normal range with this HCO B before you start calling processes ended.

C/S 53 RF and the False TA Checklist HCO B 29 Feb 1 972R, Revised 23 Nov 73, are your tools for handling too high and too low TAs.

The only other conditions I know of that make an auditor mess up a pc’s TA are:

(a) 	A discharged meter (registers high).

(b) 	An incorrectly set meter by trim button.

(c) 	A “fleeting F/N” where the pc F/Ns so briefly the auditor misses it and overruns.

(d) 	Bad TRs.

(e) 	Unflat processes.

(f) 	Overrun processes.

(g) 	Heavy drugs or medicines.

False TA often comes to light when the auditor runs out of reasons it is high or low and it dawns on him that he is dealing with false TA. In the latter case he should know all MATERIALS ON THIS SUBJECT OF FALSE TA (given on HCO B 29 Feb 1972R, Revised 23 Nov 73, as references) AND REMEDY THE FALSE TA SITUATION AND THEN RESUME NORMAL AUDITING. He must not go on calling high or low TA F/Ns just by assuming the TA is false.

Given a contact the meter always tells the truth.

	L. RON HUBBARD
	Founder

LRH:clb.rd
Copyright © 1973	
by L. Ron Hubbard	
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 15 DECEMBER 1973
Remimeo
All Levels
Add Level II
THE CONTINUOUS MISSED W/H
AND CONTINUOUS OVERT
WITH DATA ON DEGRADED BEINGS
AND FALSE PTS CONDITIONS

Reference: (1) Tape List and HCO B List of Level II,
Page 4 HCO P/L 26.1.72, Issue VI, concerning Withholds and Overts.
(2) “Admin Know-How—Alter-Is and Degraded Beings”, HCO B 22 Mar 67.

There are two special  cases of withholds and overts. They do not occur in all cases by a long ways. But they do occur on a few cases. These are CONTINUOUS MISSED WITHHOLDS and CONTINUOUS OVERTS.

This is not quite the same as “The Continuing Overt Act” HCO B 29 September 65. In that type the person is repeating overt acts against something usually named.

THE CONTINUOUS MISSED W/H

A Continuous Missed Withhold occurs when a person feels some way and anyone who sees him misses it.

Example: A doctor feels very unconfident of his skill. Every patient who sees him misses the fact that he is not confident.  This reacts as a missed withhold.

It is of course based upon some bad incident that destroyed his confidence (usually of an engramic intensity).

But as the person actively withholds this, then those seeing him miss the withhold.

This could work in thousands of variations. A woman feels continuous disdain for her child but withholds it. The child therefore continuously misses a withhold. All the phenomena of the missed w/h would continuously react against the child.

Probably all dishonest social conduct brings about a Continuous Missed Withhold. The politician who hates people, the minister who no longer believes in God, the mechanic who privately believes he is a jinx on machinery, these all then set up the phenomena of missed withholds on themselves and can dramatize it in their conduct.

THE CONTINUOUS OVERT

A person who believes he is harmful to others may also believe that many of his common ordinary actions are harmful.

He may feel he is committing a Continuous Overt on others.

Example: A clothing model believes she is committing a fraud on older women by displaying clothing to them in which they will look poorly. In her estimation this is a Continuous Overt Act.  Of course all older women miss it on her.

Appearance, just being alive, can be considered by some as an overt.

Missed withhold phenomena will result.

DEGRADED BEINGS

The Continuous Withhold and Continuous Overt are probably a basis of feeling degraded.

Degraded Beings, as described in “Admin Know-How—Alter-Is and Degraded Beings”, HCO B 22 Mar 67, are that way at least in part because they have some Continuous Missed Withhold or a fancied Continuous Overt Act.

This makes them feel degraded and act that way.

HANDLING

One can add to any program a check for a Continuous Missed Withhold or Continuous Overt as an additional version of rudiments.

A master question, which could be broken down into three lists which would have to be done by the laws of L&N, would be, “When anyone looks at you what feeling (action, attitude) of yours do they miss?” Then, “When was it missed?” “Who missed it?” and “What did he do that made you believe it had been missed?”

Another approach, less dangerous in that lists aren’t made, would be:

For Continuous Missed Withhold the question could be, “Is there some way you feel that others don’t realize?” And with 2wc uncover it. Then ask, “Who misses this?” with answer, followed by, “When has someone missed it?” with E/S to an earlier time. Followed by, “What did he (or she) do that made you think he (or she) knew?” This will key it out and can change behavior.

For Continuous Overt Act it would be, “Is there something you do that others do not know about?” With 2wc to cover it and get what it is. Then ask, “Who has not found out about it?” with an answer. And then, “When did someone almost find out?” “What did he (or she) do that made you think he (or she) knew?”

Each of the above questions should be F/Ned.

MOTION

People who have Continuous Withholds or Overts tend to be very slow, flubby and impositive. They have to be very careful. And they make mistakes. Slowness or robotness are keys to the presence of Continuous Missed Withholds or Overts.

PTS

Quite often a case is FALSELY LABELED PTS when in fact it is really a matter of Continuous Missed Withholds and Continuous Overts.
When a “PTS” person does not respond to PTS handling easily then you know you are dealing with Continuous Missed Withholds and/or Continuous Overts.

SUMMARY

These conditions are not present in all cases. When they are you have a Degraded Being. When a “PTS” person does not respond to PTS handling, try Continuous Missed Withholds and Continuous Overts. You can prevent blows, handle much HE and R and change character in this way.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH:nt.rd	
Copyright © 1973	
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 17 FEBRUARY 1974 
Remimeo

C/S Series 91

MUTUAL OUT RUDS

It has been known for many many years that the phenomenon of “Mutual Out Ruds” existed.

This means TWO OR MORE PEOPLE WHO MUTUALLY HAVE RUDS OUT ON THE WIDER GROUP OR OTHER DYNAMICS AND DO NOT GET THEM IN.

Example: A husband-wife co-audit team never run O/Ws on the rest of the family because both of them have similar overts and so consider it usual.

Example: Prisoners engaged in co-auditing (as in Narconon) may have similar overts, withholds, ARC Brks and/or problems with the rest of society and so do not think of handling them as out-ruds.

Example: Two top class auditors co-auditing, have similar overts on the junior auditors and the org and so never think to get them in.

THIS CAN STALL CASES!

A C/S has to take this factor into account wherever he has a possibility of its occurring.

In one instance mutual out ruds went so far as four auditors, co-auditing, agreeing never to put their overts down on W/Ses “so they would not lose reputation”. Needless to say all four eventually blew.

If the C/S had done a routine check for mutual out ruds, this whole scene would have been prevented and four beings would not have ruined each other.

IN ANY SITUATION WHERE A SMALL PORTION OF A LARGER GROUP IS ENGAGED IN CO-AUDIT THE C/S MUST CHECK ROUTINELY FOR MUTUAL OUT RUDS.

This could even apply to an org or vessel which was separate from the rest of society around it: its members could develop mutual out ruds from the rest of society and cases could fail on this point.

Be alert to MUTUAL OUT RUD SITUATIONS AND HANDLE BY GETTING THEM IN ON THE REST OF THE SURROUNDING PEOPLE OR SOCIETY.

                                        	L. RON HUBBARD
                                        	Founder

LRH:ams.rd 
Copyright © 1974 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 31 MAY 1974

(Also HCO PL 31 May 1974)

Remimeo

UNHANDLED DRUGS AND ETHICS

Several recent cases have come to light where the person was permitted to go on upper grades, Expanded Dianetics, Power and even OT Levels whose drugs had not been handled.

In each case there was no or poor case gain, organizational upsets and wasted auditing.

THEREFORE IT BECOMES FIRM POLICY THAT ANY REGISTRAR, C/S, D OF P OR AUDITOR WHO PERMITS A PERSON WITH UNHANDLED OR PARTIALLY HANDLED DRUGS TO BE AUDITED ON ANYTHING BUT A FULL AND COMPLETE DRUG RUNDOWN INCLUDING NO INTEREST ITEMS WILL BE SUBJECT TO COMM EV WITH A MINIMUM PENALTY OF TREASON AND A MAXIMUM PENALTY OF EXPULSION.

Tech must not be made to fail because of overt, covert or ignorant misapplication of tech.

It is fully established that a chief cause of failure in cases is unhandled or only partially handled drugs including medical drugs, treatments and alcohol. This is a barrier to case gain and in this society at this time, the major barrier.

Where drugs have not been handled or only partially have been handled, the NO INTERFERENCE ZONE RULE is waived.

                                        	L. RON HUBBARD
                                        	Founder

LRH:clb.rd 
Copyright © 1974 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 1 NOVEMBER 1974
Remimeo
Ex Dn Spclsts
Class IVs 	
Qual	ROCK SLAMS AND ROCK SLAMMERS
HCO Dept 3 

A lot of controversy has shown up this year on the subject of R/Ses and R/Sers. I thought I’d better write an issue on the subject to clarify it. The research on this was actually done years ago.

R/Ses

An R/S or Rock Slam is defined as a crazy irregular slashing motion of the needle. It can be as narrow as one inch or more than a full dial in width, but it’s crazy! It slams back and forth. It is actually quite startling to see one. IT IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM OTHER METER PHENOMENA.

Recently Auditors arriving on Flag were found not to know what an R/S was but were calling Dirty Needles, Dirty Reads, Rocket Reads, even Ticks as R/Ses. That comes from never having been trained on what an R/S is and never having seen one. R/SES ARE UNIQUE IN APPEARANCE.

Actually this is quite a serious matter because pcs get labelled as R/Sers and get run on Evil Purposes connected with this “R/S” that isn’t one. You can really foul up a pc that way, believe me.

A real R/S also has a crazy meter. It doesn’t read then it does. This happens because the meter reads just below a pc’s reality. If the pc has no reality on the subject, then the meter won’t read.

So you get a faulty meter. It doesn’t read on what it should, then it reads, then it doesn’t.

ROCK SLAMMERS

In a group of 400, the actual percentage of R/Sers is low. It’s about 8 in 400, or 2-21/2%. Those figures should seem familiar. They are the same percentage for SPs. And that gives you a clue to the identification of an R/Ser.

Where requirements for Scn or SO Orgs have been established for R/Ses they apply to the 2-21/2% of real R/Sers as these are also considered security risks for staff purposes.

These people can of course be salvaged as pcs using Expanded Dianetics. Letting them on staff could be disastrous, however.

CHECKLIST

To assist you in the identification of R/Sers I have done a complete checklist of characteristics and their references.

This checklist is to be used whenever a C/S is called upon to inspect a folder to determine whether a person is an R/Ser.

1. 	The R/Ses reported are actual R/Ses and not some other read or broken meter leads, a dusty or worn TA or Trim “pot”, or cans in contact with metal such as rings, bracelets, etc.

	Ref: E-Meter Essentials; The Book of E-Meter Drills; The Book Introducing the E-Meter; HCO B 8 Nov 62, “Somatics—How to Tell Terminals and Opposition Terminals”, pp. 2 & 4; HCO B 6 Dec 62, “R2-10, R2-12, 3GAXX”; BTB 14 Jan 63, “Rings Causing ‘Rock Slams’ “; HCO B False TA Series 24 Oct 71, 12 Nov 71R, 15 Feb 72, 18 Feb 72, 29 Feb 72R, 23 Nov 73.

2. 	R/Ses have to do with Scientology or one or more areas of the old Scientology List One found in The Book of E-Meter Drills.

	Ref: The Book of E-Meter Drills; HCO B 5 Dec 62, “2-12, 3GAXX, 3-21 and Routine 2-10 Modern Assessment”; HCO B 23 Nov 62, “Urgent—Routine Two-Twelve”; HCO B 12 Sept 62, “Security Checks Again”.

3. 	Pc is Slow or No Case Gain. Also is in a chronically nattery or critical state.

	Ref: HCO B 23 Nov 62, “Routine Two-Twelve”; HCO B 5 Dec 62, “2-12, 3GAXX, 3-21 and Routine 2-10 Modern Assessment”; HCO B 6 Dec 62, “R2-10, R2-12, 3GAXX”; HCO B 28 Nov 70, C/S Series 22, “Psychosis”; BPL 31 May 71RA, PTS/SP Checksheet and mat’ls.

4. 	Pc chronically ill or who acts most “PTS”. This can be suppressed and hidden from view, however.

	Ref: HCOPL 15 Nov 70R, “HCO and Confessionals”; HCOB 28 Nov 70, C/S Series 22, “Psychosis”; PTS/SP Pack.

5. 	Pc’s product is consistently an overt act and his activities destructive to others.

	Ref: HCOPL 14 Nov 70, Org Series 14, “The Product as an Overt Act”; PTS/SP Pack; HCO Manual of Justice.

6. 	Pc’s behavior or condition or OCA classifies as psychotic.

Ref: HCO B Ex Dn Series and tapes; HCO B 28 Nov 70.

Where the answers to this checklist are yes you have an R/Ser. HCO handles and Qual programs them for rehabilitation.

PCs WHO R/S

Pcs who R/S are given Ex Dn. This does not change even though the pc is not an R/Ser. See HCO B C/S Series 93.

Where a pc R/Ses he will have Evil Purposes and be on a succumb as a result. R/Ses indicate an area of psychosis which will ruin the pc’s life if allowed to go unhandled.

SUMMARY

This HCO B in no way changes Ex Dn as a requirement for R/Ses or makes it ok not to handle them.

Staff concerned must be able to identify an R/Ser which is different from someone with an R/S.
I thought you should have this data and hope it clears up any remaining confusion in the area.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH:nt.rd	
Copyright © 1974 	 
by L. Ron Hubbard                             
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 5 NOVEMBER 1974
Remimeo

DRUGS, MORE ABOUT

Reference: HCO B of 28 August 1968,
Issue II, “Drugs”.

WITHDRAWAL SYMPTOMS

The most wretched part of coming off hard drugs is the reaction called “withdrawal symptoms”. People go into convulsions.

These are so severe that the addict becomes very afraid of them and so remains on drugs. The reaction can also produce death.

In the reference HCO Bulletin above, B1 is mentioned as a means of easing convulsions.

Actually, practice since 1968 has shown that “Objective TRs”, a Scientology process described in detail in HCO Bs 11 June 1957, “Training and CCH Processes”, 15 July 1971, C/S Series 48R, “Drug Handling” and BTB 25 Oct 1971R, Issue II, “The Special Drug Rundown”, handle withdrawal symptoms when properly used. Great success has been achieved with them.

There is another supplementary way of handling withdrawal symptoms. This does not replace “Objective TRs” and at this writing is theoretical, being in a research phase. But so terrible can be withdrawal symptoms and so lacking in success has the medical and psychiatric field been, that the data should be released.

Muscular spasms are caused by lack of Calcium.

Nervous reactions are diminished by Magnesium.

Calcium does not go into solution in the body and is not utilized unless it is in an acid.

Magnesium is alkaline.

Working on this in 1973, for other uses than drug reactions, I found the means of getting Calcium into solution in the body, along with Magnesium so that the results of both could be achieved.

This was the “Cal-Mag Formula”.

CAL-MAG FORMULA

1. 	Put one level tablespoon of Calcium Gluconate in a normal sized glass.

2. 	Add 1/2 level teaspoon of Magnesium Carbonate.

3. 	Add I tablespoon of cider vinegar (at least 5% acidity).

4. 	Stir it well.

5. 	Add 1/2 glass of boiling water and stir until all the powder is dissolved and the liquid is clear. (If this doesn’t occur it could be from poor grade or old Magnesium Carbonate.)

6. 	Fill the remainder of glass with lukewarm or cold water and cover.

They will stay good for 2 days.

It can be made wrongly so that it does not dissolve. Variations from the above produce an unsuccessful mix that can taste pretty horrible.

Anything from 1 to 3 glasses of this a day, with or after meals, REPLACES ANY TRANQUILIZER. It does not produce the drugged effects of tranquilizers (which are quite deadly).

The application to handle muscular spasms and tics is now quite well established.

Using this to combat withdrawal symptoms is experimental.

The theory is that withdrawal symptoms are muscular spasms.

The matter should be given tests where persons suffering from withdrawal symptoms are available.

This does not supplant “Objective TRs”. These work.

But it may be that “Cal-Mag” would assist those suffering where no competent auditing is available.

As Calcium and Magnesium are minerals, not drugs, they form no barrier to auditing.

	L. RON HUBBARD 
	Founder 

LRH: nt jh 
Copyright © 1974 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 12 JANUARY 1975

Remimeo	Cancels HCO B 15 July 1971, Issue I,
Class IV	C/S Series 28R, 32R, 33R, 36R—
HDCs	“Quads Cancelled”
Ex Dn
Spclsts
QUADS REINSTATED

With the release of the Introspection RD and the Vital Info RD and recent HCO Bs such as the revised GF 40 Expanded it is vital that the original Quad Dianetics materials be made fully available to you.

am therefore re-issuing them as: C/S Series 28RA-1, “Use of Quadruple Dianetics”, 32RA-1, “Use of Quad Dianetics”, 33RA-1, “Triple and Quad ReRuns” and 36RB-1, “Quadruple Dianetics, Dangers of”.

These HCO Bs are fully valid and must be Word Cleared, starrated, done in clay and drilled by any HDC, Cl IV HDC or Ex Dn Specialist before they are permitted to audit Quad Dn.

QUAD RULES

There are two rules that must be observed in running Quad Dianetics:

ONCE A PC HAS BEEN QUAD HE IS QUAD THEREAFTER.

WHEN CATCHING UP UNRUN FLOW ZEROS ONLY RUN THOSE THAT READ.

Running unreading Flow 0s when putting in missing F0s, as in a Quad pc who was switched to Triples then was having his unrun F0s run, is the reason for overrun manifestations and BPC.

NEW PCs

New pcs may be started on Quad Dianetics and if so must remain Quad thereafter.

Old pcs run Triple, let them remain Triple unless you have to do the Introspection RD or some Quad RD. If so, put in the reading unrun F0s before attempting a new RD Quad.

There are probably quite a few pcs run on Quads from 1971 who have since been run Triple. These pcs should be called in and have their reading unrun F0s run.

Don’t now create a further backlog by mixing up process flows on current pcs.

DO IT RIGHT, TRIPLE OR QUAD.

                                        	L. RON HUBBARD
                                        	Founder
LRH:nt.rd 
Copyright © 1975 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE 
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex 

HCO BULLETIN OF 29 MARCH 1975

FLAG ORDER 2186R
MO’s Hat
ANTI-BIOTICS,
ADMINISTERING OF

(Note: This data is given for information alone and
is not intended to prescribe or otherwise treat an
individual. All prescriptions and treatments should
be done in due accordance with the medical laws
of any country in which a person seeks treatment.)

There are several “anti-biotics”. These are moulds or chemical compounds which cause bacteria, germs, to be unable to reproduce themselves (hits their 2D) while not destroying the cells of the body. At least that is one of the leading theories of why they work. “Anti-biotic” means anti = against, biotic = living beings (such as bacteria). So it’s against bugs.

Disease is said to be caused by germs or virus. Germs are microscopic cells which breed and have a bad effect on body cells and fluids. Virus is a germ that is too small to be seen in a microscope. Thus there are germ infections and virus infections.

Usually one type of germ equals one disease, i.e. typhoid fever. However, an illness can be a compound of several types of germs but this is not usual.

Virus diseases respond very badly to most anti-biotics. In fact, in the presence of penicillin, a virus sort of suspends action without any real temperature change while the penicillin is present and gets busy again when the penicillin is gone.

The effect of most anti-biotics on virus is zero. Some claims are made for some against virus. Measles is a virus illness.

So anti-biotics are mainly effective against germs. Venereal disease, pneumonia, wound infections and a long parade of diseases can be cured by anti-biotics.

When illness is accompanied by temperature, anti-biotics is usually the first thought.

Anti-biotics can however be GROSSLY MISADMINISTERED and in fact usually are even in hospitals.

The trick is to get the temperature subnormal with anti-biotics within the blood leveling period. Blood leveling means when the anti-biotic has gotten into the blood and is actually holding the infection (stopping the bacteria’s “2D” from continuing). More of the same anti-biotic is given approx 2 hours prior to blood leveling time. This then brings the temperature right on down to subnormal; continue the anti-biotic so that it keeps the temperature subnormal until it just can’t keep it subnormal any more and it comes up to normal. It will be found that the patient is now well and not likely to relapse. If blood leveling time is reached (the time is always stated on the instructions and contraindications write-up) and the temperature continues to rise, you have not used the correct anti-biotic and must at this point change to another kind of anti-biotic.

Each anti-biotic has its own blood leveling time: Penicillin is 24 hours, Gephaloridine is 8 hours, Streptomycin is 6 hours, etc.
Before administering anti-biotics you must ensure that you know exactly what toxicity it is (toxic or poisonous quality the anti-biotic has to the patient). For example Streptomycin can cause pregnant mothers to give birth to children who have impaired hearing. Renal (kidneys; having to do with them) damage can be caused by certain anti-biotics if the person has too much of a certain kind of anti-biotic. Therefore, prior to administering any kind of anti-biotic ensure that you know the patient’s full medical history, as well as knowing exactly what the toxicity of the anti-biotic is so that you do not damage the patient.

If not enough anti-biotic is given or if it is the wrong kind for that disease the temperature will not be heavily affected or at best sinks to normal without going subnormal. This condition can go on and on and on and the patient relapses.

Also if anti-biotics are given too briefly the temperature goes to subnormal, the anti-biotic ceases to be given, the patient feels better, then probably relapses—gets ill all over again.

The above important three error situations are:

NOT ENOUGH
WRONG KIND
STOPPED TOO SOON.

To these can be added:

GIVEN TOO IRREGULARLY.

This last is almost always present when you give the patient the bottle. This is a common medical error. The patients aren’t doctors, seldom take the medicine correctly and often not at all. Anti-biotics should be handed out and seen taken.

Where there is a large number ill, the times can be standardized for the group. For instance all get it at 3:00 to 3:30, 9:00 to 9:30, etc. Or even 3 hourly can be done this way.

One takes the temperature before giving the pill. (A glass of water or a cigarette before temperature taking gives a false report.) Also in this way one can increase or decrease the dose depending on what the temperature was.

In very sick cases one has to watch the temperature more closely. In this way every time the temperature starts to rise from the subnormal where you are holding it, you immediately dose the patient.

An anti-biotic all by itself cannot depress temperature. It’s the reaction of the disease and body that’s doing that.

TEMPERATURE

98.6°F or 37°C is normal. A thermometer can be a bit off (.1 or .2 high or low) and temperature can vary a bit for “normal” one person to the next.

Rising temperature (above normal) is a reaction to a disease. Lowered temperature (below normal) is a reaction to a disease being handled by the body or the anti-biotic plus the body.

100°F or 37.8°C is well above normal and is a sick temperature. 104°F or 40.5°C is dangerously (possible die) high.

97°F or 36.2°C is very satisfactorily subnormal.

Temperature rise is probably a body mechanism to bum up a disease, possibly not. But a slight temperature, a few tenths high, can make a person feel really bad. Then when it gets up higher they feel drifty and with it very high go delirious.

A subnormal temperature doesn’t much affect how one feels.

“Chills” come with high temperature.

ADMINISTERING DOSES

The general rule when administering anti-biotics is:

1. 	One gives anti-biotics until the temperature comes down past normal to subnormal and comes up to normal again with anti-biotics.

After blood leveling time of the first anti-biotic the temperature should break (go normal or below), the person going into a sweat. If it doesn’t, then it’s either not enough anti-biotic or the wrong kind.

2. 	After dosage if the temperature just came down a bit from where it was, that type of anti-biotic probably will handle the illness but enough has not been given. Increase the amount being given.

If after blood leveling time from the first anti-biotic the temperature did not go lower or even rose, it’s the wrong anti-biotic. You  change off to another and start all over again.

TAKING EFFECT

The blood leveling period of an anti-biotic is always stated on the write-up of the anti-biotic (in the box accompanying the anti-biotic). The second administration is usually given 2 hours prior to the blood leveling period. Thus if the blood leveling period is 8 hours the second dose is given 6 hours after the first dose. Take the temperature before the dose and within the next 2 hours take the temperature again and you will know whether the anti-biotic is working as the temperature should now be leveling and/or falling.

If the temperature has not leveled or dropped at this period change the antibiotic. When giving anti-biotics FO 2187 “Medical Charts” must be followed. If you don’t have a medical chart you don’t know and can’t see how the anti-biotic is working.

PAST MALADMINISTRATION

If a person in the past has been treated wrongly with anti-biotics, i.e. got taken off as soon as temperature reached normal and was not continued as by rule 1 or 2, the germ remains dormant and the area may reinfect at a later date.

If more anti-biotics are then administered the temperature will go subnormal and then to normal with the anti-biotic. 

In other words, the cycle will complete. At this point the germ has been killed.

SESSIONS

Before any session, a heavy dose of vitamins should be given, if the person is on anti-biotics.
KEY PROCEDURE

When the temperature goes subnormal keep it subnormal until it just won’t stay down with the person still taking the anti-biotic. The patient will then be well. 

The faster you can get the temperature subnormal the better.

SIDE EFFECTS

Anti-biotics have side effects, often very bad.

A patient can be allergic to a certain anti-biotic, meaning he goes red, gets hives, has bad reactions in varying degrees of severity. If so get him on another anti-biotic now.

You can test for allergy by scratching the skin and putting a dab of anti-biotic on it (not the sugar or protective covering) on a Band-Aid. After a while if the person is allergic to it the area will get red and puffy. This is not usually done unless you are being super cautious.

The Chloro___and Aureo___families can affect the sense of balance and early preparations destroyed the sense of balance forever.

All oral anti-biotics sooner or later give the patient a stomach ache and indigestion. So they should be taken with milk or after a meal, never with just water.

The longer you keep them on an anti-biotic the harder it is on the patient’s system.

The operating rule is give enough of the right kind to get a fast cure.

If you started on the wrong kind get them on the right kind the moment you detect the error.

DISEASE CYCLES

Diseases have their own cycles of action and time periods if not given anti-biotics. Some run for days, some for weeks, some for a lifetime. Gonorrhea for instance lasts a year in a man, five years in a woman. Syphilis has its own cure, not an anti-biotic, which is “Ehrlich’s Magic Bullet”, neoarsphenamine, Preparation 606, which is a one-shot cure if done right and only kills I out of 10,000. Syphilis untreated is a lifetime cycle and drives one crazy, the condition being known as “paresis”. Perhaps modern anti-biotics will include it as curative.

Pneumonia runs about 6 weeks on its own if the patient lives.

These disease cycles do not hold true when anti-biotics are used. They take as long to cure as it takes to slam the temperature to subnormal and hold it there until it can’t be held any longer. 24 to 36 hours is the new cycle for lighter illnesses treated with properly  dosed correct  anti-biotics.

More serious diseases require longer but mostly because the areas they infect have poorer blood circulation (such as bone infections).

SULFA DRUGS

The oldest anti-biotics are the sulfa drugs. These are white tablets usually. Enterovioform for stomach illness is a sulfa drug.  They have a very heavy side effect of dizziness and sometimes delusion (spiders on the wall).

Sulfathiazole is usually now used as a powder to pour in open wounds and it and its brother sulfas are the only ones that can be used “topically” which means as a surface treatment (as different from internal).

They follow when taken internally all the rules of anti-biotic administration.

“Gerontal”, a trade name for a water-soluble sulfa, is excellent in kidney infections if the rules of anti-biotics are followed. It needs large quantities.

You can fall back on sulfa when all else fails.

Sulfas are chemical compounds.

PENICILLIN

Penicillin is the first of the anti-biotics made from mould (as in mouldy bread, etc.).

It is the USUAL anti-biotic.

It is growing less effective due to diseases getting used to it and medical misadministration of it.

A disease treated with an anti-biotic which is not cured, when communicated to another body becomes able in the new body to resist treatment. Thus new anti-biotics are continually searched for.

However, penicillin is the basic, usual, anti-biotic to use.

ORAL penicillin is not only WORTHLESS but dangerous in that it has never cured anything yet. Taking it by mouth doesn’t work and I don’t know why companies sell it. Stomach juices kill it.

Penicillin has to be SHOT with a needle. Procaine penicillin in I cc or 2 cc amounts, shot into the buttocks with the person lying down on his face (muscles relaxed), lasts for 24 hours when a 2nd shot is given. Other types of penicillin can also work this way. Ordinary penicillin however has to be shot every 3 hours! Read the literature carefully.

There is a 2nd type, “G”, for people allergic to the first type (2 types so one can be used if somebody is allergic to the other). If somebody is allergic to it, it’s pretty awful.

If a shot of 24 or 36 hour penicillin hasn’t worked in 8 hours to reduce the temperature at least somewhat use some other anti-biotic at once.

Penicillin is no good even when shot for stomach or bowel complaints like dysentery. It is excellent for other types of bacterial infection. It is usually no good for virus infections.

OTHER ANTI-BIOTICS

Chloro____Aureo____Strepto____compounds are offered under a variety of trade names. The blank fills “mycin” or “mycetin”. Kemacetin or some such spelling is a company trade name for Chloro____. Chlorofin is almost the same thing.

Read the literature for the strength of each tablet or shot and what it is good for. You can puzzle this out even in a foreign language.

Follow the literature.
If one doesn’t work, another will. Chloro or Aureo___handles dysentery, stomach and bowel upsets, some viruses and a lot of other things.

VITAMINS

B1 should be given when giving anti-biotics or the patient gets depressed as all the B1 gets eaten up by anti-biotics, just as alcohol or sleeping pills eat up B1. 100 mg of B1 a day is an absolute minimum for a person taking anti-biotics.

B2 is vital to give anyone with stomach and bowel complaints whether he is on anti-biotics or not.

Vitamin C is excellent for helping colds and infections. 250 mg is the usual dose a couple times a day. It’s much like fruit in that fruit contains a lot of it. If anyone’s teeth or gums get sore push in lots of Vitamin C.

So B 1 and C are usual along with anti-biotics. B1, C and B2 are vital to help clear up stomach and bowel complaints along with anti-biotics.

INTESTINAL BACTERIA

Natural intestinal bacteria are vital to digest and handle food. These all get killed off by oral anti-biotics and must be replaced.

Yoghurt is the usual remedy and one should eat it for several days, a portion a day after getting well with anti-biotics.

The clever French put these exact bacteria in glass vials for daily dosage. This does the same thing even better than yoghurt. It is called “Biolactyl”.

Note: Under medical supervision, LRH has been handling anti-biotics as a ship captain for a long time and has done as well independent biological research. Some of the data (the use of subnormal temperatures) is not known to the medical profession but was discovered by Ron in 1952 when he had to discover it to save an important person’s life after two relapses from doctors using older methods. It has since been proven out by many quick successes using anti-biotics on ships.

A person treating someone on anti-biotics must go over this HCO B very carefully as it is very condensed, very precise and means exactly what it says. When this data is not known some get into long illnesses which are needless.

A person treating another with anti-biotics has to know many other things but the above is very vital.

All Div 5 personnel and anyone who will administer anti-biotics must *-rate M9 M4 in Qual on this HCO B. Medical charts (see FO 2187 “Medical Charts”) must be made up so that, in case of any fever, the person will be treated standardly to a speedy recovery.

	Compiled from the notes of LRH by

                                        	Kima Jason
                                        	Snr MO Flag
LRH:KJ:nt.rd 	for
Copyright © 1975 	
by L. Ron Hubbard 	L. RON HUBBARD 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED	Founder 

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 23 APRIL 1975
Remimeo
Tech & Qual	 
All Levels
All Auditors
VANISHING CREAM AND FALSE TA

	Ref:	HCO B 	24 Oct 71 	“False TA”
	    	HCO B 	12 Nov 71R 	“False TA Addition”
	    	HCO B 	15 Feb 72 	“False TA Addition 2”
	    	HCO B 	18 Feb 72 	“False TA Addition 3”
	    	HCO B	29 Feb 72RA 	“False TA Checklist”
	    	HCO B 	23 Nov 73R 	“Dry and Wet Hands
	                  		Make False TA”

After further and more extensive tests vanishing creams have proven unsuitable as a solution to dry hands.

In some cases vanishing creams have actually dried out pcs’ hands and caused a false high TA.

Vaseline Intensive Care Lotion has proven very workable when applied to a pc’s hands, rubbed in and any excess wiped off.

Another cream called Locorten was also found workable but it contains cortisone which burns the eyes if you rub them with your hands. Further tests are underway on Locorten without cortisone but these are not yet complete.

Another hand cream formula was found 90% effective upon test and is somewhat similar to the Locorten formula without cortisone. Its formula is:

      	75 grams 	Emulsified Cetomacrofolis Wax
              		(80% cetostearyl alcohol and
              		20% cetomacrofol 1000)
     	100 grams 	Cetyl Alcohol
      	20 grams 	Sorbitol Solution 70%
	1 gram 	Sorbic Acid up to
     	500 grams 	water

You could have this cream made up by any pharmacist.

A NOTE ON FOOTPLATES

Footplates generally give a wrong TA position and obscure F/Ns and reads.

They are not recommended except as a last resort where the pc cannot use cans.

FALSE TA HANDLING

It has never been OK to call a pc’s attention to his hands or TA or meter during a session. Therefore when handling a false TA get the TA in range with hand cream or can size or grip before session.

Don’t check for hand cream or can grip or change cans during the session except as directed on correction lists such as a C/S Series 53RJ under false TA.

Otherwise it throws the pc out of session and puts his attention on his TA.

Use the session for auditing.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH:rs.ldv.rd	
Copyright © 1975	
by L Ron Hubbard                             
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED		

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 27 JULY 1976
Remimeo
ALL AUDITORS

PTS RUNDOWN AND VITAL INFO RD
POSITION CORRECTED

It has just come to my attention that HCOB 9 December 1971RA and HCOB 6 October 1974, which were written by then CS-4, restricted. PTS handling and Vital Info RD to Expanded Dianetics which is a false position.

The PTS Checksheet is Board Policy Letter 31 May 1971RB. That checksheet MUST be studied and passed by ALL staff concerned with PTS handling whether in HCO or in Div 4 or Div 5. In short, THAT is the actual position on the grade chart or in classes of the PTS Rundown.

When listing has to be done to handle a PTS person or to find a why or who, on PTS RDs or anything else, it is dangerous for anyone but a Class IV who has been interned to do it. THAT is a matter of who can do listing. It is NOT a matter of where the pc is on the grade chart.

YOU HAVE TO HANDLE THOSE WHO ARE PTS AS PTSes BEFORE YOU CAN AUDIT THEM SUCCESSFULLY.

ANYONE HANDLING PTS PEOPLE MUST HAVE PASSED AND BEEN CERTIFIED ON THE PTS CHECKSHEET, BPL 31 May 1971RB.

The errors put in these two HCOBs have caused orgs and the field to fill up with PTSes which went unhandled. You cannot audit a PTS person on anything but what handles PTSness.

The HCOBs are being reissued as HCOB 9 December 1971RB and HCOB 6 October 1974R to correct the error of placing PTS RD in Expanded Dianetics where it does not belong and placing the Vital Info RD in Expanded Dianetics.

A mission that worked more than a year correcting HCOBs that were marked as written by me but weren’t and reissuing as Board Technical Bulletins missed these. They otherwise did well. The person who wrote the originals found them and called it to attention as an error.

PLEASE CORRECT THIS IN ALL PACKS.

                                        	L. RON HUBBARD
                                        	Founder

LRH:nt 
Copyright © 1976 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 10 AUGUST 1976
Remimeo	
All Sec Checkers
All HCO Personnel
All Meter Operators
R/Ses, WHAT THEY MEAN

(INTEGRITY PROCESSING CHECKSHEETS)
(PTS PROCESSING CHECKSHEETS)
(EXPANDED DIANETICS CHECKSHEETS)
(METER OPERATION CHECKSHEETS)
(VARIOUS RUNDOWN CHECKSHEETS)

The violent left right ragged motion of the needle which sometimes occurs on a pc’s meter is called “A Rockslam” or “R/S.” The term was taken from a process in the 50s which sought to locate “A rock” on the pc’s early timetrack; the “slam” is a description of the needle violence, meaning it “slams” back and forth. For a time all left right motions of the needle were considered and called “Rockslams” until it was found that a smooth left right flow was a symptom of release or key out and this became the “Floating Needle.” There is yet another left right motion of the needle called the “Theta Bop.” This occurs when the person has or is trying to exteriorize. “Theta” is the symbol for the person as a spirit or goodness; “bop” is an electronic term for a slight hitch in the sweep of a needle. A “Theta Bop” hitches evenly at each end of the sweep left and right and is very even in the middle of the sweep.

Neither the “Floating Needle” nor the “Theta Bop” can be confused with a “Rockslam.” The difference of the Rockslam is uneven, ragged agitation left and right; even the distances traveled left and right are likely to be different in each swing from the last.

A “Rockslam” can be caused sometimes by leaving rings on the pc’s fingers or by a short circuit in the meter or by the cans (electrodes) touching something like a dress. These are the mechanical considerations and must be ruled out before the pc can be considered to have “Rockslammed.” If the pc is not wearing rings and if the meter needle is calm with the lead unplugged, if the lead is okay, and if the pc is not jiggling the ends of the cans against his clothes, then the pc’s Rockslam is caused by the pc’s bank.

One has to be very careful about the correctness of the pc actually having Rockslammed while on the meter that it was actually observed, that it was not mechanically caused as above. One puts the R/S down on the worksheet and also gives exactly what was asked. And also that the mechanical points were checked without distracting the pc.

ONE MUST ALWAYS REPORT A ROCKSLAM IN THE AUDITING REPORT, NOTE IT WITH SESSION DATE AND PAGE INSIDE THE LEFT COVER OF THE PC’S FOLDER AND REPORT IT TO ETHICS INCLUDING THE QUESTION OR SUBJECT WHICH ROCKSLAMMED, PHRASED EXACTLY.

Why? Because the Rockslam is the most important needle manifestation! It gives the clue to the pc’s case.

In 1970 I began a full-scale research project into the subject of insanity and its relationship to cases and case gains and suppression. It was only then that the full significance of the Rockslam was unearthed. This research developed into what is now called EXPANDED DIANETICS, a series of special processes and actions with their drills and training which permits the auditor to handle a specific case type. This was, by the way, Man’s first system of positive detection and handling of psychosis and the first full understanding of what psychosis is.

While this bulletin is not in any way a two minute course in or a substitute for full training in Expanded Dianetics, any auditor who audits, sec checks, or handles people on a meter has to know what a Rockslam is and how it behaves and what he should do about it.

The first thing is to be able to recognize one and to quickly with the scan of the eye and unplug of the meter cord (without any distraction of or notice by the pc) make the checks for a mechanical Rockslam as given above.

You can make a meter “Rockslam” with no pc or cord connected to it by (a) turning it on; (b) put the sensitivity at perhaps 2; (c) put the needle at “set”; (d) rapidly, very rapidly, move the TA back and forth maybe a quarter of an inch and do it unevenly. That, if you did it very fast and unevenly, would be something that resembled a Rockslam. But no matter how fast you made your fingers move, a real R/S is a trifle faster. If you do that you will see what an R/S looks like. The needle in this experiment is not made to hit the sides of the meter.

Now if you take the same setup and smoothly slowly move the tone arm back and forth about 2 times a second without any roughness and the same distance right and left, you will have a Floating Needle. Note it very well as this comes at a time of release and is the thing a good auditor hopes to see and gives him the end-off signal for a process. It has to be well known as you NEVER bypass one in a session and to do so makes an uncomfortable pc. (The pc will often cognite—and get a realization about himself or life at this point and one does not stop him from doing this.) This is the thing you indicate to the pc. You don’t ever indicate Rockslams or Theta Bops. When you see it and, without stopping or interrupting the pc’s cognition, you always say, “Your needle is floating.”

Now the Theta Bop can also be shown to yourself by you. Set up the meter as above. Only this time, you smoothly swing it to the right and give it a tiny twitch in the same direction. Then you smoothly, at once, swing it to the left and give it a tiny twitch in the same direction. Then do it to the right. And so on. This is a Theta Bop. It is different than a Floating Needle only in that it hitches at each end of the swing. So learn to recognize it.

There is a vicious smooth right direction slash that occurs when a pc hits a certain area of the bank that is called a “Rocket Read” and there is of course the small fall, long fall (which both go to the right and indicate a charged question or reaction) and there is the gradual rise to the left. But these do not repeat back and forth which is the characteristic of the Rockslam, Floating Needle and Theta Bop.

All right, so we know exactly what it looks like when we talk about a ROCKSLAM as a read of the meter. We know how it can be mechanically caused. And we know what we have to record and report when it is seen.

But exactly what does a Rockslam mean with regards to the pc?

If you don’t know this you can miss on the pc, on the case, on the org and humanity.

A ROCKSLAM MEANS A HIDDEN EVIL INTENTION ON THE SUBJECT OR QUESTION UNDER DISCUSSION OR AUDITING.

Two things underlie insanity, or to be more specific, there are two causes and conditions both of which have been lumped together by man and called insanity. He could not of course define it as he didn’t know what caused it.

The first of these two things does not concern us overly much here and is the subject of a separate checksheet training and is called PTS or Potential Trouble Source handling. A “PTS” is a person who has been or is connected with somebody who has evil intentions. A PTS can feel uncomfortable in life or be neurotic or go insane because of the actions upon him of a person with evil intentions. Most of the people in institutions are probable PTSes.

The second of these two things is insanity caused to the individual himself (let alone others) by hidden evil intentions.

The extent of these intentions and what the person will do (and hide) in order to carry them out is quite shocking. These people are covert or overt criminals and many of them are insane—meaning beyond all rationality in their acts. Because their evil intentions are hidden and because they are often very plausible such individuals are what make “behavior so mysterious” and “man looks so evil when you see what mankind does” and all sorts of fallacies.

It is this last type, the chronic, heavy Rockslammer, which Expanded Dianetics handles.

One Rockslam doesn’t make a psychotic. Or a total menace to everyone. But it does mean there could be more and it might in rare cases mean you have, seeing enough of these R/Ses, a very dangerous person on your hands and in your vicinity. And that person must be handled by Expanded Dianetics.

You won’t see a great many Rockslams in auditing people so you could be totally thrown off by surprise when you see one. And mess it all up because you are surprised. So know what it is and don’t get all quivery and make mistakes and blow your confront. Just carry on.

If you don’t note the EXACT question that was asked and the EXACTLY worded statement the pc made when the R/S was seen, you can muck it up for the Expanded Dianetics guys. They won’t be able to get it turned back on again easily and will lose a lot of time. So you have to be sure your auditing report is accurate, that the R/S is written BIG on the column and circled and, no matter what else you do in the session, you have to get it recorded in the left front cover of the folder giving the date and page of the session and you have to report it to Ethics. And also you don’t third party the pc and give him a bad time in the session because of it.

Now R/Ses most easily turn on during Sec Checks or Integrity Processing or when pulling withholds or trying to investigate something. So the people who see these most often are those engaged in that activity and not routine auditing (when they can also but more rarely turn on). Further the most likely person to collide with “needing to be sec checked” is an R/Ser, which again increases the numbers of R/Ses seen in these activities compared to routine auditing. But a very heavy R/Ser will also turn them on in routine auditing.

It is the exact point of the R/S in the session, the exact question that was asked and the exact subject or phrase where the R/S turned on that are important. And these are very important as then the person can be fully handled with a full Expanded Dianetics rundown by a qualified Expanded Dianetics Specialist. When, of course, the person gets to that point on his grade chart. (The grade chart points are after Dianetics (like Drug RDs etc) but before Grades, after Grades but before Power, after Power but before Solo, and after OT III or after any single grade above OT III. These are the only points where Expanded Dianetics can be delivered and the R/S fully and completely handled.)

Now here is how you can turn off an R/S and mistakenly think it is handled:

1. 	The overt-motivator sequence has two sides. One is what the person has done (overt) and what is done to the person (motivator). You can ask, when the person R/Ses on something, if anyone has ever INVALIDATED him on that subject or action. He will find some and the R/S will turn off AND WON’T EVEN BE FAINTLY HANDLED BUT ONLY SUBMERGED. One can believe he had “handled” the R/S. Not true. He has just turned it off and maybe made it harder to find next time. One can ask what the person has done TO the subject mentioned and while this may unburden the case and make the person a bit better, the R/S is NOT handled, only turned off or submerged. It’s almost as if there are so many overts and motivators on this subject or in this area that the push-pull of it makes the needle go wild (R/S). And indeed, this may be the energy cause, in the bank, of the needle reaction.

	But neither overt nor motivator handles an R/S finally because the CAUSE of the R/S is an INTENTION to harm and it isn’t all that likely the basic intention will be reached.

2. 	Another apparent way the R/S can get “handled” and isn’t is to take the R/Ser earlier-similar on the subject of the R/S. The R/S will probably cease, go “clean.” But in actual fact it is still there, hidden.

3. 	The third way an R/S can be falsely “handled” is to direct the person’s attention to something else. If, when this is done, the exact subject of the R/S is not noted by the auditor, it will be difficult to find it again when the person goes into Expanded Dianetic auditing.

4. 	Yet another, and probably the last way to falsely “handle” an R/S is to abuse the person about his conduct or behavior or the R/S, or to “educate” him to do better, or to “modify” his behavior with shocks or surgery or other tortures like the psychiatrists do. In other words one can seek to suppress the R/S in numerous ways. Maybe the R/S won’t occur (being too overburdened now) but it is still there, buried very deep and possibly beyond reach now.

So if you understand the above four points you will see that although you can ease off the R/S, you have not handled it. It has merely gone out of sight.

All right, what then DOES HANDLE an R/S?

I warned you that this isn’t a two minute course on Expanded Dianetics and it isn’t. An R/S is HANDLED by a fully qualified Expanded Dianetics auditor delivering full Expanded Dianetics to the person at that point on the grade chart where Expanded Dianetics is supposed to be delivered. If anyone thinks it can be done effectively any other way or if he C/Ses it to be done and the auditor is stupid enough to try to do that C/S, then it’s Committees of Evidence and Suspended Certificates all around.

With that warning, and only with that warning, I can briefly state what has to be done with the case. This is not what YOU do if you are not delivering full Expanded Dianetics at the right point on the grade chart. It is a brief statement so that you can understand what lies under that R/S.

The pc with an R/S on any given subject and who R/Ses while discussing that or related subjects HAS AN EVIL INTENTION TOWARD THE SUBJECT DISCUSSED OR SOME CLOSELY RELATED SUBJECT. The pc intends that subject or area of life nothing but calculating, covert, underhanded HARM which will be at all times carefully hidden from that subject.

Thus, the Expanded Dianetics Specialist, in handling that case (at the proper point on the grade chart) has to be able to locate each and every subject and question and R/S in that person’s folder as noted by Sec Checkers and previous auditors or cramming officers or why finders. He has to have the complete list of R/S subjects. If they are noted as to session date and page and if all sec checking papers and cramming papers are in that person’s folder, then the Expanded Dianetics Specialist can do a full and complete job. Otherwise he has to do a lot of other time wasting actions to get the R/Ses found and turned on again.

What the Expanded Dianetics Specialist actually does is locate EXACTLY the actual evil intention for every R/S on the case and handle each one to total conclusion. When he is finished, if he has done his job well, the person’s behavior will be magically improved and as to his social presence, menace and conduct, well that will be toward survival.

When you see an R/S, if you are not an Expanded Dianetic Specialist doing Expanded Dianetics at the correct point on the grade chart, you don’t say, “Hey, you’ve got an evil intention!” and you don’t ask “Say, what’s that evil intention?” or do corny things like that because you’ll get the pc self listing, you may get a wrong item, you won’t know what to do with it and you’re just likely to get the auditing room wrapped around your neck right there.

No, you quietly note it, make sure it isn’t a mechanical fault, write it big on the worksheet, write down everything the pc is saying swiftly, note what question you were asking and let the pc talk and ack him and go on with what you are doing with the pc at the time. And after session you note it in the left-hand cover of the folder and send a report to Ethics.

And some day, when he’s done his Drug Rundown or gotten to one of the points on the grade chart where a full XDn can be done, why then it will be handled. And a good C/S will program or tip the case for that to be done.

So that’s the know-how you have to know about R/Ses to really help the guy and the society and your group.

We’re not in the business of curing psychos. The governments at this writing pay the psychiatrists billions a year to torture and kill because of R/Ses they don’t know anything about. The crime in the society out there is caused by people who R/S. Stalin, Hitler, Napoleon and Caesar were probably the most loaded R/Sers of all time unless it was Jack the Ripper or your local friendly psychiatrist.

So know what you are seeing when you see it and know what to do about it. And don’t kid yourself. Or vilify or mow down people who R/S; we’re not in that business.

And the Expanded Dianetic Specialist and the pc someday will love you dearly for knowing your job and doing it right.

                                        	L. RON HUBBARD
                                        	Founder

LRH:nt 
Copyright © 1976 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
		
HCO BULLETIN OF 20 OCTOBER 1976
Remimeo
DPE
Ethics Officer	Issue II
PTS/SP Checksheet	
PTS HANDLING

Once in a while I hear of PTS handlings that “didn’t work” or “still PTS” or some such. Or I’ll come across such extremes as a PTS is virtually an incurable leper to be shunned and kept isolated or almost everyone is PTS to some degree so what can you really do about it. The basic thing to realize is that PTSness, like any other case condition afflicting Man, responds to plain old standard tech. But one has to have studied and understood that tech to apply it, naturally.

I recall years ago in handling PTSes, that none of them at first knew what PTS really meant or what it was all about even when they used the term freely! So I recently called for a pilot to see what would be the effect of a study method of curing PTSes.

FIRST PILOT

Before the final pilot was done, an earlier pilot was attempted by an Aide which was not conducted as laid down. CS-5 reviewed the failed pilot to find why so many failed on it. 4 out of 6 were never completed and the 2 that did failed.

CS-5 reported “What I found on these was that they uniformly were not PTS in the first place or were PTS but that was not the major trouble with the person. Three of the cases (2 on auditing and I on study) were out-ethics, R/Sing, Exp Dn cases who were trying to use PTS as the reason for their behavior. Thus handling their PTSness would not resolve anything. The most interesting case here was the study one who realized that he was not PTS and that that had been a wrong indication and that what was really wrong with him was that he had bad intentions and was committing overts. One of the audited cases had a similar realization but has not done as well on post and did get very sick 2 months or so later. Of the other 3 pilot cases in this first batch one could only come up with in-the-org terminals so is another Exp Dn case and the other 2 assigned to study were severely bugged students so never got off the ground (one has now finished the course 4 months later). So that’s what happened to the original pilot.”

The second pilot was then ordered to determine the original possibility, that people could study their way out of being PTS.

SECOND PILOT

Three were put onto the PTS/SP Checksheet to study and three were handled by internes who had done the PTS/SP Checksheet themselves. The cases handled by auditing/interview steps completed their handlings within 10 hours. The study cases averaged 4-6 weeks of part-time study. Two studiers from the original pilot also completed the course. All were then watched for bad originations to the Examiner, medical reports, ethics trouble or trouble on post. In all cases, including those not yet complete on study, none of these indicators showed up. One case originated case troubles but this turned out to be one of the “Exp Dn” cases not PTSness.

On the study pilot the daily reports and success stories on completion uniformly mention more certainty, more stability and being more at cause with the data. Of particular interest is that three of the participants “cogged” they were not actually PTS (yet evidence of real PTS sits had gotten them on the project) but while they were studying they would align past PTS handlings they didn’t fully understand at the time, spot why past PTS terminals were correct or incorrect, spot terminals who gave them a hard time in the past and see why certain people behaved the way they did. In short it appears the studiers were blowing charge on their past PTS handlings and on terminals in their life almost like an auditing session and while they were saying not PTS, no longer PTS (now that they had the data) is probably closer to the truth. All are reported to be doing well on post with no illness, roller-coaster or ethics trouble.

The PTS handlers (who had done the PTS/SP pack) were of particular use where the person had a study bug that needed handling before study could be done and assisting in working out the handlings for PTS sits that were uncovered. Also S&Ds and 10 Aug HCOB handlings and PTS interviews are not Solo actions. And it takes hours, not intensives to handle.

FALSE PTS

As noted from the first pilot false PTSness must be watched for as unhattedness, ignorance of Scientology basics for handling life, past bad auditing uncorrected as well as unhandled bad intentions and personal out-ethics can be mistaken for PTSness and won’t resolve as PTSness. This should be suspected when your “PTSes” start going above 20% of staff and public.

SUMMARY

We have had the tech of PTSness for years, but it wasn’t being fully used and then got mixed in with Exp Dn. PTSness can be handled routinely when the tech is fully known and applied. A PTS person can be brought to cause over his situation through study of the PTS tech. This is vitally important for staff. We can handle and the person himself can handle.

There is no substitute for understanding.

LRH:JE:nt	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1976	Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED	As assisted by CS-5

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
		
HCO BULLETIN OF 6 DECEMBER 1976
Remimeo	(Also HCO PL 6 Dec 76)
All Registrars
All Case Supervisors
All Ds of P	ILLEGAL PCS, ACCEPTANCE OF
All Auditors	
GO	HIGH CRIME BULLETIN

It shall be a Committee of Evidence offense for a Case Supervisor or auditor to C/S or accept for processing and process any pc:

1. 	Who is terminally (fatally) ill, regardless of what the org or registrars may have promised or asserted. Such diseases as advanced cancer are included.

2. 	Who has an extensive institutional history which includes heavy drugs, shocks of various kinds and/or so-called psychiatric brain operations.

3. 	Who has been denied processing by the Guardian Office for reason of past history or connections or current state as it may affect the safety and security of the org.

It shall also be a Committee of Evidence offense for any ED/CO, Org Exec Sec. Technical Secretary, Director of Processing or other executive or staff member to bring pressure or persuasion upon any Case Supervisor or auditor to process such persons.

It is not that such cases cannot in many instances be handled. It is that neither Scientology nor the org. but doctors and psychiatrists, have brought about the condition and such conditions are outside the zone of responsibility of the org.

Registering such pcs is already illegal, but where it has occurred intentionally or accidentally, no one has the right to force such persons upon Case Supervisors or auditors for any reason.

Any promise made by an org to such a person or his relatives is not binding upon an organization or its staff and such promises are also a Comm Ev offense.

Special petition may be made by the person concerned to the Guardian Office, the representatives of which may act to correct injustices or erroneous use of this Policy Letter. But the Guardian Office itself does not have the right to persuade or insist that Case Supervisors or auditors accept the person for processing unless it is very clearly demonstrated that the person does not fall under any of the above three categories.

Doctors are too often careless and incompetent, psychiatrists are simply outright murderers. The solution is not to pick up their pieces for them but to demand medical doctors become competent and to abolish psychiatry and psychiatrists as well as psychologists and other infamous Nazi criminal outgrowths. Society and police agencies should deal with such offenses. It is not up to Scientologists to salvage the wreckage created by these professions, but to prevent it from happening in the first place by reforming a degraded society.

Until such time as doctors have become fully competent and psychiatry and psychology have been recognized for what they are and abolished, Case Supervisors and auditors are actionable for surrendering their rights and handling such. It is not that they cannot. They must not.

	L. RON HUBBARD
	Founder
BDCS.LRH nt	for the
Copyright © 1976	BOARDS OF DIRECTORS
by L. Ron Hubbard	of the
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED	CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 13 JANUARY 1977RA
Remimeo	REVISED 13 FEBRUARY 1977
Tech & Qual	REVISED 5 MARCH 1977
All Levels	
All Tech	(Revision in this type style)
Check sheets	
HANDLING A FALSE TA

Ref:  	HCOB 24 Oct 71R 	False TA
	HCOB 12 Nov 71R 	False TA Addition
	HCOB 15 Feb 72R	False TA Addition 2
	HCOB 18 Feb 72R	False TA Addition 3
	HCOB 23 Nov 73RA	Dry & Wet Hands Make False TA
	Book: E-Meter Essentials
	Book: Introduction to the E-Meter
	HCOB 10 Dec 76 	F/N & TA Position
	HCOB 21 Jan 77R 	False TA Checklist

HCOB 13 Jan 77 Handling a False TA is revised to show LRH quotes (which are indicated by quotation marks).

“It has recently been discovered that auditors have been mishandling false TA by assessing with the meter to find what the cause of the false TA is instead of directly checking the pc themselves.

“A recent example of this is the False TA Checklist (HCOB 29 Feb 72RA Revised 23 April 75) was being used by assessment on the meter to try to find the pc’s false TA cause. The false TA was not remedied as the auditor never even felt the pc’s hands! Never even checked the pc’s grip! Never felt what the pc’s hands felt like with cream on them! The auditor just checked the lines on the meter and when a read was obtained the pc was asked and nothing came of it. The false TA, now being unhandled, due to the auditor’s confusion caused the pc to be audited over further false TA and drove the pc into desperation. I had to jump in and handle this one. All I did was check the grip and I found that the can size was way too big and part of the pc’s hand (the palm cup) was not touching the can thus causing the TA to read higher = false TA. The cans had to be reduced to 1 1/4 inch diameter aluminum tubing! This particular pc was also misapplying hand cream. The quantity was incorrect and the way the pc was putting it on was not handling the false TA. This pc needed to put Vaseline Intensive Care on extensively then wipe off the hands with Kleenex and then put a bit more on and rub it all over the hands and ensure that the thumbs were being covered. One more factor that messed up the case was the sensitivity was set too high and consequently F/Ns were missed and the TA shot up.”

Another example of this was we had a pc who constantly had low TA F/Ns. Upon checking his grip we discovered that he held the cans so tight that it caused his hands to sweat and part of the hand was actually off the cans. Adjusting the grip handled the false TA. This pc then started to cognite that he was really a fast pc after all and there was nothing wrong with him.

We had another interesting one. This particular pc crossed her legs and had cans that were too big. By having her uncross her legs and recognizing that the can size was off and needed changing to 1 3/4” diameter aluminum tubing remedied her false TA.

So you have to watch it. Make sure that the sensitivity is set correctly for that pc so you don’t miss the F/Ns.
“NONE OF THIS WAS DONE BY AUDITOR ASSESSING A LIST. IT WAS DONE BY OBSERVING THE PC’S HANDLING OF CANS AND POSITIONS AND SEEING WHAT IT DID TO TA POSITION.

“The main point here was the auditor thought that a false TA was think and would register on the meter. That is as silly as asking the meter if you should buy ice cream today or not. The meter can’t answer when the answer is required of the preclear. How the hell would the meter know if the pc’s hands were dry or cold. The auditor has to feel them, touch them, check for dryness by feeling them. Do they FEEL dry? Do they FEEL cold? Are the pc’s feet so cold that no circulation gets through? Do you know without feeling them? Does the hand cream you are using dry up? How do you know without feeling the pc’s hands? I have known a pc to say no it hasn’t dried up because the pc hated wearing cream and didn’t want to put more on. So feel the hands. Don’t just ask the pc and then assume that that is it. You will mess up cases and won’t handle the false TA.

“False TA is in the physical universe. It is something that really exists. When you start checking for meter reads you are violating this law. It is in the physical universe not the pc’s think or bank. It can badly mess up a case to not find the cause of false TAs and then carry on with auditing.”

Understanding the meter and what the meter reads on and understanding false TA and what causes it are the basics behind finding a false TA and remedying it so that the pc can happily continue on with auditing and advance.

“If you think that you have solved a false TA yet the pc still has high or low TA F/Ns then you haven’t solved it at all and you had better roll up your sleeves and get bright and go in there and find it. And the way you do this is to check the pc. What do the hands feel like? What type of clothing is the pc wearing? Feel for tight clothes. Don’t just take the pc’s word. Maybe they like wearing tight shoes but look at that 4.5 F/N. Let them wear tight shoes out of session but get rid of those tight shoes in session so you can get an accurate reading meter.”

Don’t use this to hassle pcs and interject it into sessions whenever you please. When you see a false TA phenomena note it down and the C/S will include it in the program to be handled. This is covered in HCOB 10 Dec 76 F/N AND TA POSITION.

There is no pc on this planet or any planet that wants to experience over-repair and misery due to false TAs. You will be doing them a great service to handle it for them so they can happily be audited after that. Don’t Q&A with the pc’s considerations just find what ‘in the physical universe’ is causing the false TA and remedy that in the physical universe.

Note: The False TA Checklist has been rewritten and issued as HCOB 21 Jan 77R.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
As assisted by
Paulette Ausley
Revised to show 
quotation marks by 
Paulette Ausley
2nd Revision assisted 
by Paulette Ausley 
LRH Tech Expeditor

for the
BCDS:LRH:PA:nf.lf.nt
Copyright © 1977	BOARDS OF DIRECTORS
by L. Ron Hubbard	of the
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED	CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
		
HCO BULLETIN OF 24 JANUARY 1977
Remimeo
All Auditors
All Supervisors
All Interneships
URGENT AND IMPORTANT

TECH CORRECTION ROUND-UP

Auditors and Scientologists for 27 years have tended to be suspicious of HCOBs and Policy Letters not written by myself.

Until a few months ago my opinion was that this, while flattering, was not entirely justified.

However, these last few months have sharply changed my belief into total agreement with all those who have expressed some fear of reinterpretations of bulletins by others.

I have been engaged for some months now in a round-up of out tech issues.

And I have found, I am sorry to say, that mice have been gnawing at the pillars of the Bridge, putting up traffic barriers and false detour signs.

I have been finding serious out tech issues and correcting them.

Whether because of misunderstood words (the commonest cause of out tech alterations) or other reasons, there have been a staggering number of tech sectors that have been corrupted by issues by others that alter-ised.

The corrections I have been doing have been, are being or will be issued shortly. However, not all auditors and Scientologists keep pace with current issues and so I am here giving you a rapid summary of the gross departures from standard tech which have occurred in the past 3 or 4 years and their corrections.

So you were right!

A very few people (3 or 4) have wittingly or unwittingly brought about outnesses which could easily make the difference between successful case handling and failed cases.

Action has been taken to handle them and there are a great many good people at work now in compiling and reissuing the workable tech which I developed in the first place.

It is now forbidden to write an HCOB or an HCO PL and sign my name to it.
	
If anyone helped compile it or wrote it, my name is followed by “Assisted by_____” the person who helped get it back together at my directions.

Also no Board Technical Bulletin may cancel an HCOB.

So from here on you are relatively safe.

I am always the first to tell you and this is no exception.

TECH CORRECTIONS

There follows here a long list of incorrect procedures or data found to have been issued.

Also a brief rundown of the correct procedure will be found, which is the correct and standard tech.

What makes tech correct? When it doesn’t get results it is incorrect. When it gets the expected result it is correct.

My own writings and researches are based wholly upon things that got and get results.

When another, through misunderstood words or other reasons, “interprets” or changes the original tech, it has been the general experience that results are not obtained.

By studying this list you may very well find some alter-ised points which caused you to have trouble or which caused confusion.

Therefore, the subjects themselves are described in summary form.

Not all issues are out yet which accomplish full correction. Their HCOB numbers therefore cannot be given. Some of the issues are not yet released but will be soon. However, there is no reason to deny you the essence of the material and so I am giving you the full list to date.

I trust this list and HCOB restore some stability.

I hope that any failures you may have had due to alter-ised materials will be spotted by you. And that you will be able to apply some of these right now and get the full materials later.

I like results, you like results. And the following may include some of the reasons you may have had a hard time with some sessions.

I am sorry for that. I have come back on tech lines especially to correct it, and have spent seven months spotting areas where there has been trouble or failures, evaluating them and discovering the alter-is of original materials and issues. In many cases the alter-is sure was hidden. This completes 7 months of search for tech outnesses.

Here is the list.
A: PTS HANDLING

The first shock (which actually began this current search for out tech issues) was the discovery that PTS conditions were going unhandled across the world and had been for some time.

“PTS” means Potential Trouble Source and means the person is affected adversely by a suppressive in his life. A PTS person can be a lot of trouble to himself and to others. The condition is not too difficult to handle and to find that all the tech of handling it was in disuse explained why there had been a lot of trouble and upset on various lines.

After a great deal of search, it was found that PTS handling and another rundown (The Vital Information Rundown) had been restricted only to Expanded Dianetics. Thus one would find on pcs’ programs that they were supposed to go all the way through Dianetics and their grades before their PTS condition was handled. In actual fact a person who is PTS cannot be audited on anything else until the PTSness has been straightened out. This was operating as an effective barrier to cases.

The first thing you do for a pc in any grade or without grades is handle his PTSness.

As long as the subject was hot I decided to look further into it to make sure that the actual tech was still available and to get a pilot done to verify its use in actual practice since few had had any PTS handling for a couple of years.

I initiated a pilot project and it was well executed by CS-5.

The results of this project are found in HCOB 20 Oct 1976.

The outcome of this further research as contained in that HCOB was that the person, for full handling, should be gotten through his PTSness and then should study the complete pack of PTS/SP Checksheet, BPL 31 May 71RC, so that he knows the full mechanics that had been wrecking his life. This is contained in HCO PL of 20 Oct 1976.

While the above named checksheet is quite adequate, a project is now in progress to collect up all original LRH Case Supervisor notes (C/Ses) and handwritten materials on PTSness so that additional issues may be brought out and the checksheet extended. The reason for this is that there is a sector of non-audited handling of PTSness which has never been fully released. This comes under the heading of additional material and the existing PTS material is not only workable but is vital.

So this scene was rounded up and PTSness is again being handled successfully over the world.

As an additional note, a cassette is now being made for general distribution and sale which will soon be released so that PTS people can get one and send it or play it to persons antagonistic to their leading a better life.

B: ORG DELIVERY

No auditing is a technical situation. The ability to procure auditing has a considerable bearing on people’s case progress—naturally.

It was found that some organizations were slow in delivery and were backlogging which tends to create a no auditing situation amongst pcs.

To remedy this backlog, the Technical Secretary of every org was given a new statistic, “VALUE OF SERVICES DELIVERED.” This gives an index of the delivery of the org and brings backlogs into view and will serve as a means of alleviating a no auditing situation in the field where it exists as it calls the fact spectacularly to the attention of all management, local and international. This is HCO PL 12 Nov. 76.

Along with this another situation came to view which again was a matter of other people writing HCOBs.

The Director of Processing had been given in HCOB 16 June 1972R a statistic which encouraged him to simply route pcs out of the org once they had completed a small part of their processing.

Accordingly the statistic of the Director of Processing in an org was revised in HCOB 16 June 1972RA to “the number of pcs routed back into the lines.”

The Director of Tech Services was given a stat of getting actions completed on pcs.

With these two stats operating, one after the other, a no auditing situation in an area is further alleviated.

People do not sufficiently consider no auditing as the most basic failure of cases. It seems so “of course” that it gets entirely overlooked yet it can cause a great deal of trouble.

C: HSDC RE-DO

The first inkling that the Hubbard Standard Dianetics Course curriculum had gone adrift was noticing that two key drills had been omitted and even cancelled by others even though they were vital to an auditor’s skill in handling a Dianetic session.

These drills were Dianetic Training Drills 101, 102, 103 and 104. These have to do with student auditors remembering their commands in session, making him practiced in using commands while handling his meter and admin, training him to use the right command in the right place according to what the pc does and finally training him to use commands and handle the session in spite of any and all distractions or reactions from a pc. Obviously if a Dianetic auditor cannot do these things he cannot run a Dianetic session.

These drills now have been emphatically reinstated in HCOB 19 July 1969R reissued 9 Dec 1976; they are for use in all Dianetic training.

Looking into this further, I found that there was a new unauthorized Dianetics Course which supposedly was based on Dianetics Today being issued which would be a sort of a competitive course to an HSDC. In following this further it was found that even the most fundamental formats of the HSDC which I personally developed and piloted had been grossly alter-ised, that a number of persons had been writing HCOBs on the subject, and that the format had been lost.

The original HSDC is being gathered together at this time with all instructions, C/Ses and drills in the pattern and format which was originally developed and which DID make GREAT auditors. So you can expect a considerable resurgence in the quality of Dianetic auditing some time in the future.

At the same time, a new course, which makes a senior Dianetic auditor, is being put together which is a post-graduate step after a person has become an HSDC. This will take in all the materials found in Dianetics Today and should cover areas of special Dianetic application.

D: ROCK SLAMS

A rock slam (R/S) is defined as “a crazy irregular slashing motion of the needle.”

This particular meter reaction was found to be relatively unknown to auditors on an examination I made of some worksheets. They were calling dirty needles, dirty reads, rocket reads, body motion and even ticks as “R/Ses.” They were also missing real R/Ses.

As the R/S is probably the single most important and dangerous read on the meter, clarifications of this were in order.

Accordingly I wrote HCOB 10 Aug 1976, “R/Ses, WHAT THEY MEAN” and caused to be written from my notes HCOB 1 Nov 1974R, “ROCK SLAMS AND ROCK SLAMMERS.”

For a pc to be branded as an R/Ser is a very serious thing. Also for a real R/Ser to be overlooked by an auditor is a catastrophe both to the pc and to those around that particular person.

Therefore, this is very dangerous ground to have wrong.

These issues will help to clarify that.

At the same time I’m currently at work on a video tape which will be available in Academies some time in the future, which gives all meter reads.

Meanwhile, don’t make any mistakes on R/Ses. Read those bulletins.

Another confusion in this sector was how to define and identify a “List 1 R/Ser.”

All characteristics given in a list issued as HCOB 1 Nov 74 and signed by another with my name were stated to have to be present before a person was a “List 1 R/Ser.” The incorrect HCOB is on page 344 Vol VIII of the HCOB Volumes and will be corrected in later editions.

“List 1” refers to Scientology related terminals as found on page 57 of The Book Of E-Meter Drills.

The additional characteristics on this list only help to look for a List 1 R/S. I issued HCOB 1 Nov 1974R revised 30 Dec 1976 which now corrects this error.

A List 1 R/Ser is simply one who R/Ses on List 1.

E: SEC CHECKING AND INTEGRITY PROCESSING

Following down the trail of auditors missing R/Ses, it was found that Sec Checking had become a nearly lost art.

Sec Checking means, unfortunately, “Security Checking.” That it was so misnamed in its origins obscures the fact that Confessionals have been part and parcel of religion nearly as long as religion has existed.

In actual fact the meter simply gets a pastor or minister over the very dangerous situation of missing a withhold on his parishioner. A person with a missed withhold can become very upset with the person who misses it; the meter, properly operated, makes sure that none are missed.

In an effort to get around what was thought to be a public relations scene, the name “Security Checking” was changed to “Integrity Processing.” This was also a PR error because the actual truth of the matter is it originated as “Confessional” and should have simply been changed back to “handling of confessions.”

This administrative demand of name alteration threw the original issues on “Sec Checking” into disuse.

Additionally “Integrity Processing” did not include all the tech of Sec Checking. And some even thought they were different subjects!

The loss of Sec Checking, more properly called Confessionals, and the failure to use a meter to verify withholds resulted in many student blows (dropouts) and has permitted the continuance of a great deal of natter and upset which are simply the result of missing withholds on people.

When you realize that a lot of the trouble of the Roman Catholic Church probably arose through not having a meter to verify the completeness of Confessionals, you can see what the loss of Sec Checking would do to our own churches and organizations. In other words, we were about to repeat history!

All this original “Sec Checking,” properly Confessional, tech is being rounded up again and will be issued in checksheet form and there will be courses in “The Handling of Confessionals.” But even before you receive these, you should resume the use of this metered tech as it will save you having people “mad at you” simply because you have missed withholds on them.

It is highly self-protective both from the viewpoint of the auditor and the organization to have the proper metered handling of Confessionals fully in.

BTB 31 Aug 1972RA “HCO CONFESSIONAL PROCEDURE” clarified the matter but this bulletin was on a very limited distribution and is not known. It contains the tech I developed on Sec Checking in the autumn of ‘72.

There should be no further confusion in this matter. “Sec Checking,” “Integrity Processing” and “Confessionals” are all the exact same procedure and any materials on these subjects is interchangeable under these titles.

The materials when all recollected and consolidated and reissued will be under the title of “Confessionals.” But even before that reaches you, you had better determine to become an expert in it, since an auditor’s inability to handle this is a fast route to “how to win enemies and wrongly influence people.”

F: EXPANDED DIANETICS OVERHAUL

Expanded Dianetics began in development in 1970. It is a very fully developed subject. However, for some reason or another, the total materials of Expanded Dianetics were never packaged and exported even when it was reported that they had been. Thus auditors who have been trained as Expanded Dianetics auditors had been denied considerable key materials and have even lost the reason for Expanded Dianetics.

Contributing to this was the removal of “Sec Checking” (Confessionals) materials from the Expanded Dianetics Course to make up the “Integrity Processing Rundown.” Thus the course was stripped even further, for an Expanded Dianetics auditor has to be very expert in the handling of Confessionals.

The actual extent of Expanded Dianetics can be described as follows: “Ex Dn consists of all the work I did on psychos and very difficult cases from 1970 forward, my C/Ses, case histories, any tape lectures or notes, which includes as well all data known to date on Confessionals, and all data on PTSes. The product of the course is an auditor who can handle psychos, R/Sers and any person’s evil intentions as well as any PTSes.”

That would be the full extent and skill of an Expanded Dianetics auditor. There is considerable data connected with the subject and it is the only data, proven, workable data, Man has on the subject of neurosis and psychosis, and is the first breakthrough made in this field as to its actual cause. This also embraces criminality.

While we are very far from being in the business of handling psychos, not all psychos are in institutions or classified as psychos in this society. Furthermore PTS persons become PTS to people who are usually psycho.

Thus this whole scope and breadth of Expanded Dianetics has to be and is being recompiled and issued.

Furthermore the position of Expanded Dianetics on the Grade and Class Chart was muddied up. Actually Expanded Dianetics can be given after a Drug Rundown, after Standard Dianetics, after Scientology grades, after Power, after OT III and at any point upwards after completion of Grade OT III.

A PTS Rundown can be given without regard to whether the person had had Expanded Dianetics or not. A PTS Rundown can be given anywhere and better had be.

An auditor is trained on Expanded Dianetics after he has become an HSDC, a Class IV auditor.

An auditor does not have to be an Expanded Dianetics auditor in order to deliver a PTS Rundown. All he has to do is complete the PTS Checksheet and should be a Class IV in order to audit it. There are even some portions of the PTS Checksheet, particularly as it would be revised, which can be delivered by a person who is not trained as an auditor at all, but this would be non-audited handling which consists mainly of coaching the person as to how to handle his scene.

The complete Expanded Dianetics tech is, as I have said, being recompiled, issued and gotten back in.

G: WORD CLEARING

Having discovered an executive who had “been word cleared” by a “Word Clearer” but who then required more than 4 1/2 hours to clear the first two pages of the same material when handled by a higher classed auditor, I investigated the extent of Word Clearing training and use being out.

A study of the Word Clearing Series was ordered and it was found that there was little concentration on metering and TRs.

These seem to have been slighted because Word Clearing starts with the phrase “I am not auditing you” and this apparently has been taken to mean that one didn’t have to know his meter and TRs in order to word clear. HCOB 10 January 1977, Word Clearing Series 55, “ HOW TO WIN WITH WORD CLEARING” is a result of this investigation and should be given particular importance.

Another factor was spotted and is handled in Board Technical Bulletin 12 January 1977 Revised 16 January 1977, which was issued as a result of my having found that Word Clearers had a wrong stat. The stat of Well Done Auditing Hours would not apply to a Word Clearer. Their stat is now “Number of Misunderstood Words honestly found and fully handled in applicable materials.”

Another action is found in HCO Policy Letter 10 January 1977, “ETHICS AND WORD CLEARING,” wherein “Any Word Clearer who word cleared materials on which misunderstoods have been found at a later date shall be summoned to a Court of Ethics.”

The phrase “I am not auditing you” does not excuse ignorance on the Word Clearer’s part of a meter or a poor command of TRs. Of course this must also include his knowledge of Word Clearing tech. His TRs and metering must be excellent.

The marvelous wins that can be gotten with Word Clearing had been lost and with this should now be recovered.

H: F/N TA POSITION

The subject of missing F/Ns (floating needles) on pcs is very important as a pc who has had an F/N missed becomes overrun and can be very upset and his case can even be stalled.

The first instance I ran into of this (some years ago) had to do with the sensitivity setting on the meter. Most auditors apparently simply would set a sensitivity knob on 5 and leave it there, regardless of how the pc advanced and regardless of who they were auditing. This would give them extremely wide F/Ns which would hit the pin, on one or both sides, and hang up as they were unable to keep the needle on “set.” The correct way to go about this is to always set the sensitivity knob by pc can squeeze. When the pc squeezes the cans, the sensitivity knob should give about a third of a dial drop, no more, no less. Only in that way can you keep a needle on the “set” mark on the dial. Otherwise, F/Ns get missed. Some pcs have to go up to 128 (32) which is a front face meter setting to get such a fall on a can squeeze and I have just noted a pc who had such a wide F/N swing that the sensitivity had to be set at 1 (32), which is about as low as the meter can go without turning off, and even then this pc got a half a dial can squeeze fall and so had to be watched very carefully so that F/Ns were not missed. I mention this in case it has dropped out again.

The current discovery which just dropped with a clang was that in one interneship, an interne supervisor was using verbal tech which had then spread all over the world to the effect that you MUST NOT call an F/N an F/N unless it were between 2 and 3 on the tone arm dial, and that any F/N type motion which occurred with the TA above 3 or below 2 could not possibly be called an F/N. This was his own craziness and he wished it off with a bunch of verbal tech on an awful lot of auditors and caused an enormous amount of pcs subsequently to be very unhappy.

The result and remedy of this is contained in HCOB 10 December 1976, which is marked Urgent and Important. It is marked that way because apparently there are very few pcs around right now who haven’t had F/Ns missed on them.

This HCOB should be very carefully studied. However, in brief, the correct procedure for out of range (above 3 or below 2) F/Ns is:

1. 	Look at the pc’s indicators,

2. 	Call the F/N regardless of its range, if the indicators are alright,

3. 	Mark down the actual TA position when the F/N is indicated,

4. 	Handle the false TA at the earliest opportunity when it will not intrude into the current cycle of auditing,

5. 	On any pc you suspect has had his F/Ns disregarded because of false TA, you C/S for and get run a repair and rehab of points in his auditing when F/Ns were missed on him.

In other words, have your sensitivity correct and when an F/N occurs outside of the range between 2 and 3, know that it is an F/N by the needle motion and by the pc s indicators and call it, indicate it and put it down on the worksheet. Note the actual TA position. Then, before the next session or after you have finished a crucial cycle of auditing on the pc, in the next several sessions, go into the whole subject of his false TA and handle it.

Missing an F/N is very cruel on a pc because it invalidates his having released the charge on the subject on which he is being audited and tends to tell him that he is not better even though he feels better. There is one historic case of an auditor having gotten an F/N in the first ten minutes of auditing and then, because it occurred slightly above 3, auditing the pc for an additional three hours with the TA climbing, the pc unhappy and no results being obtained from the processing. This sort of thing is pretty gruesome.

Verbal tech is no substitute for HCOBs.

I: FALSE TA

Having written the HCOB just above telling auditors that they call the F/N regardless of where it was, providing the pc’s indicators were OK and then handle the TA on the pc, I found that issues on correcting false TA had been messed up.

In both HCOB 29 Feb 1972R Revised 23 Nov 1973 and its successor HCOB 29 Feb 1972RA Revised 23 Apr 1975, careless reading could imply that the False TA Checklist was audited on the pc like any other prepared list. In other words this idiocy set in that the meter reads were going to be used to divine whether or not the meter knew whether or not the pc was responding properly. The list actually, is a list of things the auditor manually, mechanically checks on the pc. He does not consult reads and he does not assess anything on the pc; he simply personally does a checklist and this was the checklist. It was not assessed to find a reading item. Therefore an auditor trying to correct false TA and get the TA to read between 2 and 3 by using a meter to assess the list would never find out what was going on and would be unable to get the meter into that position.

Accordingly, HCOB 13 Jan 1977 was directed to be written, and the full and entire checklist to be done by the auditor on the pc recompiled and updated. It is being issued as HCOB 21 Jan 1977.

Therefore it will now be very easy for an auditor to correct the false TA on a pc and he will be able to get the meter tone arm properly between 2 and 3.

You know, don’t you, that a TA goes up more than a division when you start using a one-hand electrode? This is not a “false TA” that you can correct. Solo auditors using just one hand have their TAs riding around 3.7 and 4.5 on the tone arm. This is not a case of false TA, it is always checked by using both hands on the cans at the start and end of session. But here again false TA can occur if the hands are too dry or too wet or the can size is wrong.

You shouldn’t have very much trouble with this. Actually it’s a very simple matter, but the outnesses in this sector have caused an awful lot of trouble and I was very happy to be able to find the erroneous issues and get it straight for you.

A video which will eventually become available in Academies will also cover false TA handling.

J: INCOMPLETE AUDITING FOLDERS

For some time Word Clearers, Sec Checkers, Ethics Officers and Cramming Officers have neglected to include their worksheets in the pc’s actual folder.

This causes considerable difficulty for a Case Supervisor since the person may have wrong lists in “Why Finding,” may have R/Sed on a Sec Check, may have had incomplete or incorrect Word Clearing and other tech outnesses in between regular sessions. Where these folder omissions occur an FESer (Folder Error Summary maker) is often prevented from finding where the case went wrong.

Then there is the matter of no folders at all. Somebody has lost them or mislaid them, yet some auditor needs them desperately to find out lists or to actually verify grades attained. The preservation and availability of auditing folders to the next auditor or a Case Supervisor years up the track is of very great importance.

Accordingly HCO PL 28 Oct 1976 and HCOB 28 Oct 1976, C/S Series 98 (which are both the same equal texts) were written by me to remedy these very dangerous tech outnesses.

K: FALSIFYING AUDITOR REPORTS

Along with missing reports it was found that there had been some difficult situations created by the falsification of auditing reports.

From the small matter of saying that the TA was at 3.0 when actually is at 4.5 when the F/N occurred (thus obscuring the fact that false TA had to be handled), up to the very large crime of faking the fact that certain processes had been run when they had not just to get a completion or a bonus and up to falsifying the data or text which the pc gave, this matter of false Auditor Reports can cause enormous amounts of trouble.

The consequences and detection of the falsification of auditing reports is now contained in HCO Policy Letter 26 Oct 1976 Issue 1, the same text issued as HCOB 26 Oct 1976 Issue 1, C/S Series 97. This makes even the minor falsification of an auditing report a matter of Comm Ev and, if the crime is proven beyond reasonable doubt, there can result a cancellation of all certificates and awards, a declare and an expulsion order.

If you think this is unnecessarily harsh, think of the poor pc.

L: CHECKLIST FOR FESers

It can happen that a pc is taken up into new grades without having completed earlier, more basic grades and without being set up for the later grade. This can result in somebody going through several grades just to cure a mild somatic or a PTP. It can also throw a pc in over his head.

For a long time there have been checklists showing the requirements for most major grades.

A recent instance of a pc going all the way through to OT III who had not completed anything caused me to investigate the reasons behind this.

It was discovered that very few Case Supervisors ever check a folder to find out if the pc has actually made the grades lower than the one that he is about to be put on.

A further check showed that few C/Ses ever looked up the earlier history of the case and this resulted in pcs being put up through levels for which they have not been set up and past levels they have not made.

A further investigation showed that these checklists were not in existence for every grade and action.

It became obvious that the people who should be using these checklists would be the Folder Error Summary auditors. These FESers are the only ones who thoroughly go through the folders and Case Supervisors depend on them. Thus if the FESer is not required to verify whether the pc has properly attained the level he is about to go onto and if he has been set up for the level, then nobody is going to check this over and a great many pcs are going to be audited on skipped gradients without set-ups and will get into difficulty.

I have ordered that checklists be made up for FESers to use for each major grade so that they can check off the requisites for each grade and thus handle this out gradient situation. These checklists are being worked on at this time and will be issued in the near future.

In the meantime it is the duty of the FESer to indicate whether or not the pc has actually reached each grade to which he has attested and whether or not he is properly set up for the grade he is about to be embarked upon.

M: AUDITOR RECOVERY
It can happen here and there that an auditor who has been auditing eases off and ceases to audit.

There are various reasons for this. One of the common ones is a skipped gradient in his training. Another one is misunderstood words and the commonest one is overts of omission or commission on the subject of auditing or pcs which have not been handled.

An LRH ED 176RB INT originally issued on 24 April 1972 was unfortunately revised 2 or 3 times by other people and lost its punch.

I reworked this and restored it to its earlier form on 7 Nov 1976 and this is available as LRH ED 176RB INT. The investigation and reissue being assisted by CS-7.

It is available in this form and in the near future will be issued as an HCOB.

N: STUDY TECH

During an investigation of pricing I discovered that “The Student Hat” had disappeared from use and in its place had been put an optional Basic Study Manual. The fact is that the Basic Study Manual has its own uses and is very valuable but it does not begin to replace The Student Hat.

This meant actually that study tech had more or less disappeared in Academies and was not in general use.

The actions taken were to make The Student Hat mandatory on a one-time basis before the next major course a person took and to include it free as a bonus to the person taking that course.

The Student Hat has been restored in totality as a requisite for study tech. This will make study much more positive and much faster.

The Basic Study Manual was put forward sometime ago as a means of getting staffs hatted on their hat materials and as a fast method of getting people reading the materials of their posts. I suppose that is how it drifted over onto major courses, where it has no business.

Thus The Student Hat is back full force and if there are any blown students around you should realize that the reason for their blow is either lack of study tech or undisclosed overts. The thing to do is to get them back and push them through The Student Hat so they can win at their studies and get their overts off so they can look their fellow man in the eye.

There has been another training outness found which I will mention in passing. In some interneships the entire Qual staff of the org has been employed in checking out students. Actually such checkouts are done by the students themselves, on each other where starrates are required in interneships.

It has also been found that twinning on theory occasionally creeps back in. People have not noticed that twinning on theory, meaning two students always study together, went out many years ago and has been cancelled. It makes a noisy classroom and prevents students from getting through their courses rapidly. Twinning on theory sets up too many difficulties such as the loss of one’s twin by reason of graduation or transfer, being sent to Cramming, an odd number of people on the course so that one is without a twin and so on.

Practical is another matter. In practical drilling is done on the twin basis.

The theory and practical are never in the same room; they must be in different rooms. The theory room must be very, very quiet where a student can concentrate and the practical room must be so situated as to allow students to make noise. If any Academy has a noisy theory classroom or if the Academy is difficult to study in, this is probably what is in violation: probably the twinning is going on in theory or the theory rooms are noisy. Only a practical room can be made noisy.

The two issues (putting twinning in on theory) have now been revised and cancelled. They are HCOB 26 Nov 71, Tape Course Series 10, W/Cing Series 26 “HANDLING MISUNDERSTOOD WORDS ON TAPE RECORDED MATERIALS,” which has been revised and cancelled by BTB 26 Nov 71RA (Tape Course Series 8, W/C Series 26RA) of same title (Tech Volume IX, page 440). HCOB 7 Feb 72 Issue 11, W/Cing Series 31, “METHOD 3 WORD CLEARING BY THE STUDENT’S TWIN” has been revised and cancelled by BTB 7 Feb 1972RA Issue II, W/Cing Series 31RA “METHOD 3 WORD CLEARING” (Tech Volume IX, page 448).

The main point is you want a quiet and orderly theory training room and put the noisy demo and practical actions elsewhere. And also don’t hang up people on theory because they lose their twins. Practical twins are highly interchangeable.

O: PROFESSIONAL RATES

It was found in some cases that pcs would enroll on courses and then never take them just so they could have professional rates in their auditing.

This not only denied them the training they paid for but it was also making organizations short of auditors.

Accordingly HCO PL 13 Nov 1976 was issued which clarified “professional rates” which makes it necessary for an auditor to be fully classed in the class of that org from which he is seeking service in order to qualify for a 50% professional discount in auditing. This does not apply to his family.

What’s the matter with becoming an auditor? There are 2 or 3 billion pcs out there and only a few of us auditors. Have a heart and also lend a hand. Furthermore how do you know what good auditing is unless you’re trained?

P: SENIOR CASE SUPERVISOR LINE

It was recently found that the Senior Case Supervisor, in at least one large org. spent most of his time giving advice to executives on personnel case requirements for the crew! This is so far from the duties of a Snr C/S that the HCO PL outlining their duties has been rewritten and has become HCO PL of 26 Sept 1974R, revised and reissued 21 Jan 1977, which tells a Snr C/S in effect to look after the tech quality in his org.

There is another modification on Snr Case Supervisors. Previously it was necessary for someone to go to a distant org and become a Class VIII before he could be qualified as the Snr Case Supervisor of an org. This is no longer necessary. HCO PL 24 Oct 76 Issue III modifies these requirements so that a Snr Case Supervisor can be trained by his local org.

In this same Policy Letter the award of Dean of Technology is outlined. These would be gold certificate Case Supervisors. They are Saint Hill Special Briefing Course Class VIII Course auditors who have attained the case level to the class of his org and has a uniform record of case supervision.

This general overhaul of the Snr Case Supervisor and his lines and duties is in effort to correct out tech and establish excellent tech in any org and its area.

Q: INTERNESHIPS

It was found that very few interneships were now being taught and an investigation undertaken by the Action Aide Flag Bureau at my orders, finally uncovered that interneship checksheets had been added to and added to and stirred about until they had become checksheets within checksheets, thus making interneships interminable.

As a result of this, a special mission was put on the job of reforming interneship checksheets.

These checksheets have now been issued and exist for every level as Board Policy Letters issued from 10 Nov 76 up through BPL 25 Nov 76 Issue 1. They have been greatly simplified and have made interneships into very worthwhile actions.

These new simplified interneship checksheets are in full use at this time.

Along with this interneship program, HCO Policy Letter of 25 Oct 1976 has been issued which requires that all past provisional certificates which have not been validated by an interneship and which are one year or more old from the date of course completion are cancelled. It states such students should be notified and should be enrolled on the interneship for the class. If a properly conducted interneship is satisfactorily completed, their permanent certificate may be reissued.

All of this is in an effort to get auditors straightened out, getting wins and making them really proficient and professional in all areas of the world.

R: ILLEGAL PCs

It has occasionally happened that an auditor has had pushed off on him by persuasion or pressure, cases who should not have been accepted by the org.

HCOB 6 Dec 1976 also HCO PL 6 Dec 76 (identical texts), make this a High Crime.

Certain types of cases may not therefore be forced off on auditors by anyone, and anyone seeking to force such a pc upon an auditor against policy, is actionable by a Committee of Evidence.

S: EXPANDED GRADES BEING REDONE

It has been found that some processes were left out of Expanded Grades 0 to IV and that in some cases these grades had been quickied. Therefore, all Expanded Grades checklists are being reissued and will contain more extensive processes.

Until you have the new Expanded Grades checklists, the ones you are using are still OK.

T: REPAIR LIST REVISED

Through an oversight, an incomplete Board Technical Bulletin 11 Aug 1972RA revised 18 Dec 1974, C/S Series 83RA, was included on page 230 of Volume X of the HCOB Volumes.

A far more extensive write-up, LRH ED 257 INT of 1 Dec 1974, existed which gave much more data and many more prepared lists as repair tools for the auditor.

The LRH ED has now been issued as HCOB of 24 Oct 1976 C/S Series 96 “DELIVERY REPAIR LISTS.”
Although this issue has been updated to some degree, there are still one or two repair lists omitted. Therefore, this is about to be issued again as C/S Series 96R, which will include the additional and valuable lists.

U: ROUTING FORMS AND STAFF STATUSES

It has been found that Staff Status 0, 1 & 11, Sea Org Products 0, 1 & 11 and Org Routing Forms were not in full agreement with one another.

This is taking a lot of straightening out and is very much in need of it, as in one major org it was found to be impossible for a new staff member to route onto post!

This is under full coordination rewrite and will be issued in the near future.

V: STAFF SECTION OFFICER

I have for some time been concerned about the lack of care some orgs had been giving their own staff members.

As a result HCO PL 22 May 1976 was issued which established the post of Staff Section Officer, who was responsible for the training and the processing of staff members.

To further enforce this, the Qual Divisions of orgs were given a new Gross Divisional Statistic in HCO PL of 4 Nov 1976. This gave the dominant Qual Divisional Statistic as “Fully qualified and trained staff members in the org. cumulative.”

Additionally, in HCO PL of 10 Nov 1976 certain staff courses were made mandatory in orgs.

So as not to neglect staff cases, even when auditors were absent, a whole new project has been released concerning “co-audits.”

This is actually a recovery of lost tech. There used to be co-audits, very successful ones, and they had their own special technology.

A tech mission to the UK, reassembled the tech and got staff co-audits going with rave wins.

All of this technology and how it is done, has been issued as Board Technical Bulletins dated around early December 1976 under the title of “Co-audit Series.”

Both the co-audit tech and Group Processing fell under the category of lost tech, but have been restored, polished up and are being issued for full use.

W: UNISSUED RUNDOWNS

It came to my attention in July of ‘76 that about 5 years worth of my developments on Flag had never been fully packaged up or issued for use. The reason for this is, that the Tech Compilations Units which had previously worked on this were disbanded in 1972 by the then CS-4 and was not reestablished.

Several years worth of intensive research and development are therefore backlogged in being issued.

Only one of these areas of development is restricted to Flag, as it is the famous “L” series of rundowns which require such technical accuracy that they can only be audited by a Class XII.

The rest of the rundowns, however, are fully capable of being fully compiled from the notes, lectures, issues and my case supervision notes and released.

Including the repackaging necessary for the HSDC, Expanded Dianetics and reissue of Expanded Grades, all mentioned above, there were 9 rundowns in all which were never compiled or exported.

For that matter, the much earlier Class Vial Course was added to and varied and it also is being repackaged in its original form and exported and is now being taught again in Advanced Orgs.

The remaining rundowns are being worked on for issue as never having seen the light of day in Class IV, Saint Hill and Advanced Orgs.

All this is now being done. So soon this important new tech will appear and be available in orgs.

X: ADVANCED GRADES

For a number of years people have wondered when OT VIII would be released.

Well, to tell you the honest truth, OT VIII has been in existence all those several years, and to it has been added a very large number of OT grades. None of them have been issued. Notes for all these grades are in existence.

What I have been waiting for is 2 or 3 months of free time to go over these materials and write them up and make them available through Advanced Organizations.

Now I will make a bargain with you. If you get all the tech straightened out and the orgs and flaps and emergencies off my lines and get your training in and your Word Clearing in and everything flying and this civilization even more thoroughly pointed in a civilized direction, you will buy me those 3 months’ worth of time so I will be able to afford the time to write up all these Advanced Levels I have researched. Do your job well and buy me these three months.

Is it a bargain?

LRH:act.lf.nt 	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1977 	Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 26 JANUARY 1977
Corrected & Reissued
Remimeo	20 MARCH 1977
Tech & Qual	(Correction in this type style)
All Levels
All Auditors
All Tech Checksheets

FOOTPLATES USE FORBIDDEN

Ref: 	HCOB 24 Oct 71R 	FALSE TA
	HCOB 12 Nov 71RA 	FALSE TA ADDITION
	HCOB 15 Feb 72R 	FALSE TA ADDITION 2
	HCOB 18 Feb 72R 	FALSE TA ADDITION 3
	HCOB 24 Jan 73 	Issue II
	HCOB 23 Nov 73RA 	DRY AND WET HANDS MAKE FALSE TA
	HCOB 23 Apr 75R 	VANISHING CREAM AND FALSE TA
	HCOB 13 Jan 77R 	HANDLING A FALSE TA
	HCOB 21 Jan 77R 	FALSE TA CHECKLIST

The use of footplates is forbidden. A recent dispatch to myself from LRH quotes him, “I tested footplates and they don’t read! Not on the bank.”

The above issues cover how to handle a false TA. Use them to resolve TA problems not footplates.

Paulette Ausley
As ordered by

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

BDCS:LRH:PA:nt.dr 	for the
Copyright © 1977 	BOARDS OF DIRECTORS 
by L. Ron Hubbard 	of the 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED	CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 5 FEBRUARY 1977
(Also published as HCO PL, same date.)
Remimeo
EDs. COs
HESes. S/Cs
HCOs
HASes
Sec Checkers	C/S Series 100
Case Supervisors
Staff Section Officers
JOKERS AND DEGRADERS

It is an old principle that people who do not understand something occasionally make fun of it.

A recent investigation however into the backgrounds and case condition of a small handful of people who were joking about their posts and those around them showed a somewhat more sinister scene.

Each of these persons fell into one or more of the following categories:

1. 	Were rock slammers. (Some List 1.)

2. 	Were institutional type cases.

3. 	Were “NCG” (meaning no case gain) (the only cause of which is continuous present time overts).

4. 	Were severely PTS (Potential Trouble Source) (connected to rock slammers).

It might be supposed that misunderstood word phenomena could also be part of this. The rebellious student in universities is usually handled by clearing up his misunderstoods or curing his hopelessness for his future. However, the investigation did not find that any of these jokers or degraders were acting that way solely because of misunderstood words, but the possibility cannot be ruled out.

The four categories above were, however, fully verified.

All the persons investigated were found to be the subject of declining statistics, both having them and causing them. Their areas were enturbulated. At least one of the jokers was physically driving basic course students out of an org.

In some cultural areas, wit and humor are looked upon as a healthy release. However, in the case of orgs, this was not found to be the case. Intentional destruction of the org or fellow staff members was the direct purpose.

Therefore all executives, HCO personnel and Case Supervisors as well as Qual personnel and Staff Section Officers have a valuable indicator. Where they have a joker or degrader on their hands they also have one or more of the above four conditions in that person.

This opens the door to handling such people.

Properly assigned and then fully done conditions are the correct ethics handlings.
Correctly done Expanded Dianetics, which includes Confessionals and fully done PTS handlings are the case remedies.

Where ethics tech itself is not known or neglected and where there are no HCOs one can, of course, not expect the matter to be handled. And this would be too bad because the case gain and life improvement available in proper ethics handlings, when fully followed through, can be quite miraculous.

Where rock slammers have been undermining the tech and it is not fully known or used or is altered into unworkability one cannot expect Confessionals to be properly done or Expanded Dianetics to be known and properly applied.

The joker is advertising his symptoms. He is also advertising an area of the org where there is enturbulation and down statistics as well as staff members being victimized.

Therefore this is an administrative and technical indicator which cannot be overlooked and should be followed up.

Spotted, investigated and handled, this can be the beginning of an upward spiral for an organization.

Where someone is driving ethics out, tech is not likely to go in. You have to get in ethics and tech before you can begin to get in admin.

The next time you, as an executive, wonder why you are working so hard, look for the joker in the deck.

Humor is one thing. Destroyed orgs and human beings are quite something else.

It is our business to get the show on the road and get the job done.

L. RON HUBBARD 
Founder 

LRH: If 
Copyright © 1977 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
		
HCO BULLETIN OF 1 MARCH 1977
Issue II
Remimeo
Confessional
Auditors	CONFESSIONAL FORMS
SHSBC

Never subtract anything from a Confessional.

The best method is to write out a predetermined series of questions, as an additional thing, which is for that person particularly. You figure out about what their relationship to life has been, and then you write a little special series of questions.

It’s always possible to write up an additional list. Don’t make that the only Confessional form. Give that along with a standard Confessional.

You get the idea of what kind of life your preclear has been leading, what his professional and domestic zones are, and you adapt Confessional questions to that and you add it to standard forms.

Compiled from
LRH Taped Lecture
“Teaching the Field
Sec Checks,” SHSBC
6109C26 SH Spec 58
Approved by
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
Assisted by
Training & Services Aide

LRH:JG:lf 
Copyright © 1977 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
		
HCO BULLETIN OF 1 MARCH 1977
Issue III
Remimeo
Confessional
Auditors	CANCELS
Snr Cl IV	BTB 21 DEC 1972 FORMULATING
SHSBC	INTEGRITY PROCESSING QUESTIONS

FORMULATING CONFESSIONAL QUESTIONS
(Compiled from LRH taped lecture “Teaching the
Field Sec Checks,” SHSBC 6109C26 SH Spec 58.)

Withholds don’t add up to withholds. They add up to overts, they add up to secrecies, they add up to individuations, they add up to games conditions, they add up to a lot more things than O/W.

Although we carelessly call them withholds, we’re asking a person to straighten out their interpersonal relationships with another terminal.

Our normal Confessional is addressed to the individual versus the society or his family.

It’s what people would consider reprehensible that makes a withhold.

In a Catholic society, not having kept Mass would be a reprehensible action. In a non-Catholic society, nobody would think twice about it. So, most of our Confessionals are aimed at transgressions against the mores of the group. That is the basic center line of the Confessional.

You can have a special mores between the son and the mother, a special mores between the husband and the wife, just as you have a special mores, of course, between the auditor and the preclear.

It’s a moral code that you are processing in one way or the other.

You are straightening out somebody on a moral code, the “Now I’m supposed to’s.” They’ve transgressed on a series of “Now I’m supposed to’s.” Having so transgressed, they are now individuated. If their individuation is too obsessive, they snap in and become the terminal. All of these cycles exist around the idea of the transgression against the “Now I’m supposed to’s.” That is what a Confessional clears up and that is all it clears up. It’s a great deal more than a withhold.

You would go straight to a person’s handling of masses and changes of space. On lacking a clue in that direction, you would go into his most confused motional areas (not e-motional).

This fellow has been a recluse ever since he was twenty. He has not done anything since he was twenty. He has never been anyplace since he was twenty. His hidden standard is he would “get about more.” Could he find himself getting about more, he would know that Scientology was working. You find what area he was in before he was twenty. Staying in the house is a cure for something. So you put him on an E-Meter. You can’t find areas of moving heavy masses or changes in spaces before he was twenty because he wasn’t working. It probably lies in the zone of, maybe, he was in the service? Maybe he was in a boarding school? So all of a sudden you hit the jackpot and you find an area of considerable activity. You’re looking for the area of considerable activity which lies prior to the difficulty. Then you run a Confessional on that area of activity.

You trace it back to boarding school. There’s one boarding school that he absolutely detests, he suddenly remembers. That’s what you do the Confessional on.

Every question you ask has to do with this boarding school. Just add up the factors. How many things can go on in a boarding school? How many people are present? What is there in a boarding school? There are students, boys, instructors, coaches, headmasters, buildings, athletic equipment, and probably transport from there to home, etc.

Find out all the types of crimes that he might have been able to commit against these items. You can dream up a whole form.

One of the ways of doing it is taking an existing Confessional form and just moving it over to the zone of the school. That is not as satisfactory as just putting down all the things he really did in this school that he is never going to tell anybody.

It inevitably is going to be an area of tight mores. He has cut up against those mores, so has individuated himself against the school, so he cannot as-is any part of the track. He’s trapped in that particular zone and activity.

Any set of cut sensory perception will operate as overt bait. Forget is a version of not know. So that any sensory perceptive cut off is an effort not to know and you have a target.

Take everything that you’ve worked up to right there and now do a Confessional on it. Eventually you’ll get a “What do you know!” He’s too in the thing to see it. You can see it because you’re outside of it.

You write up every noun you could possibly think of on the subject of the zone or dynamic that he is having difficulty with and which he fails to cognite on in any way shape or form. You can immediately assume that if he doesn’t cognite on that zone or area, that he’s really pinned down and that he has withholds from you and from the area on the subject of the area that not even he knows.

A cognition is totally dependent upon the freedom to know. Overts and withholds are dedicated to another thing, these are dedicated to not knowingness. So if the person doesn’t cognite, you can immediately assume that he has a large area of not knowingness on the subject that he doesn’t even suspect. You as an outsider to his case can suspect where this fellow is having trouble. You dream up a Confessional to match it. The formula for making up a Confessional is just make up a list of all the items you can think of which have anything to do with that target.

Let’s say his family; he’s always had family trouble. You can get this from a pc’s PTPs. If you look at the type of PTP that the pc has, you’ll know that it is a present time problem of long duration. If it adds up to three or four times in a row of PTPs with his family, it must be a problem of long duration. The hottest way to get rid of that particular zone is to do a Confessional on it. Again, the way to do a Confessional, is to make a list of all the nouns and all the doingnesses which you can think of and just ask the person if he has overts against any of them; has he done anything to, has he interfered with anything about, e.g. “Have you ever interfered with schooling,” “Have you ever done anything to schooling,” “Have you ever prevented schooling.”

It’s little by little that this cognition will take place. It’s not all going to take place in one bang.

In the long run it will be a bang, but the bang only took place because you took the pebbles off the top. When you’ve finally got the thing uncovered—he can look at it and blow it.

This is the rule: ANY ZONE OR ACTIVITY WITH WHICH A PERSON IS HAVING DIFFICULTY IN LIFE OR HAS HAD DIFFICULTY WITH IN LIFE IS A FRUITFUL AREA FOR A CONFESSIONAL.

You will find out every time, he’s got withholds in that zone or area.

One of the indicators of that is a present time problem. Therefore you know it’s a problem of long duration. Three problems of short duration equals one problem of long duration. It’s a good detector mechanism.

THE RULE IN CONFESSIONALS IS BREAK THE PROBLEM DOWN TO ITS MOST FUNDAMENTAL EXPRESSION.

Then write down those nouns associated with it and those basic doingnesses associated with the fundamental expression and then just phrase your Confessional questions on the basis “Have you ever . . . ?” and any other verb you want to put in. “Have you ever done anything to . . . ?” “Have you ever prevented . . . ?”

You don’t have to be fancy as the needle’s going to fall every time you come close to it.

Any area where a person is having difficulty in, he is stupid in. Stupidity is not knowingness. This is through overts. But the overt has to be hidden, so it must be an overt that is withheld.

So, these withholds then add up to stupidity and he of course, has trouble.

There isn’t anything complicated in it at all.

Compiled from
LRH Taped Lecture
“Teaching the Field
Sec Checks,” SHSBC
6109C26 SH Spec 58
Approved by
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
Assisted by
Training & Services Aide

LRH:JG:lf 
Copyright © 1977 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 7 MAY 1977
Remimeo

LONG DURATION SEC CHECKING

It has been found on some cases which did not immediately R/S, even though their crimes and past would seem to indicate they should have R/Ses, that when Sec Checking was carried on for several sessions, one each on several consecutive days, R/Ses then began to show up. In two cases, List One R/Ses showed up on persons who had never been noticed as having R/Ses before.

It can then be concluded that R/Sers do not R/S necessarily on casual brief Sec Checks.

Part of this phenomena is that the person quite commonly gives off very shallow overts of the order of “I stole a pen from HASI” or “I thought your TRs were bad and I didn’t tell you” and other shallow PT answers to searching Sec Check questions.

This is so much the case that whenever I see shallow wishy-washy “averts” coming off a case day after day, I suspect that sooner or later a good auditor will suddenly find real roaring overts and R/Ses sitting there.

The soft-spoken quiet “inoffensive” person is also a candidate for this sort of disclosure.

Particularly notable is the person who “has never done anything wrong in his whole life and has no overts of any kind.”

These are just special cases of the same thing and an auditor should be alert to them.

L. RON HUBBARD 
Founder

LRH:cb .dr 
Copyright © 1977 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 31 MAY 1977
Remimeo
LSD

YEARS AFTER THEY HAVE
“COME OFF OF” LSD

Characteristics of persons who have been on it from examination of 2 cases:

1) 	They are disassociated—meaning they are separate from anything they are doing.

2) 	Whatever occurs has nothing to do with him.

3) 	Not responsible for their own action or anything else and it doesn’t occur to them that they ever should be.

4) 	Their emotions are shut off to a greater or lesser extent.

5) 	Consequences mean little or nothing to them.

6) 	They are stupid.

7) 	Normal actions that another can do easily get mucked up by them.

8) 	They are unpleasant to associate with.

9) 	They are de-humanized and can be vicious or irrationally cruel.

Apparently they have become a sort of a vegetable or a zombie to a greater or lesser degree.

The LSD apparently stays in the system and is liable to go into action again giving them unpredictable “trips.” Which could be quite fatal while driving and even walking around.

A Drug Rundown which has to include LSD cannot be considered complete until the person has undergone a long period of sweating and heavy liquids and exercise.

The way LSD got popular was because of Henry Luce, the head of Time Magazine, who publicized it and glorified it from mid-1950 on. He and his wife were under psychiatric care and were on LSD.

Nearly as I can trace it, it was the Nazi intelligence drug developed in Switzerland and was probably intended for use in municipal water systems to paralyze the population just prior to an invasion as the invading enemy would then find them all irrational.

It only takes a millionth of an ounce to produce a “full trip.”

When you are dealing with an LSD case or anyone who has ever taken LSD you cannot and must not consider their Drug Rundown complete until they have been sweated and given liquids and exercised for months as well as heavily audited. They can recover with auditing and this handling, but it won’t be very fast.

LRH:lf	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1977	Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
		
HCO BULLETIN OF 23 JULY 1978
Remimeo
Originally issued as HCOB
10 Mar 70 LIST OF PERCEPTICS
DIANETICS BULLETIN. This
issue has been revised.
(Revisions are given here in this type style)
(Ellipsis indicates deletion)

C/S Series 101

LIST OF PERCEPTICS

This was researched and dates of 1951.

It’s the 57  human perceptions.

1. 	Time
2. 	Sight
3. 	Taste
4. 	Colour
5. 	Depth
6. 	Solidity (Barriers)
7. 	Relative Sizes (External)
8. 	Sound
9. 	Pitch
10. 	Tone
11. 	Volume
12. 	Rhythm
13. 	Smell (The sense of smell has four subdivisions which are categories of the type 
		of odor.)
14. 	Touch a) Pressure b) Friction c) Heat or Cold d) Oiliness
15. 	Personal Emotion
16. 	Endocrine States
17. 	Awareness of Awareness
18. 	Personal Size
19. 	Organic Sensation (Including Hunger)
20. 	Heartbeat
21. 	Blood Circulation
22. 	Cellular and Bacterial Position
23. 	Gravitic (Self and Other Weights)
24. 	Motion of Self
25. 	Motion (Exterior)
26.	Body Position
27. 	Joint Position
28. 	Internal Temperature
29. 	External Temperature
30.	Balance
31. 	Muscular Tension
32. 	Saline Content of Self (Body)
33. 	Fields/Magnetic
34. 	Time Track Motion
35. 	Physical Energy (Personal Weariness etc.)
36. 	Self-Determinism (Relative on each dynamic)
37. 	Moisture (Self)
38. 	Sound Direction
39. 	Emotional State of Other Organs
40. 	Personal Position on the Tone Scale
41. 	Affinity (Self and Others)
42. 	Communication (Self and Others)
43. 	Reality (Self and Others)
44. 	Emotional State of Groups
45. 	Compass Direction
46. 	Level of Consciousness
47. 	Pain
48. 	Perception of Conclusions (Past and Present)
49. 	Perception of Computations (Past and Present)
50. 	Perception of Imagination (Past and Present)
51. 	Perception of Having Perceived (Past and Present)
52. 	Awareness of Not Knowing
53. 	Awareness of Importance, Unimportance
54. 	Awareness of Others
55. 	Awareness of Location and Placement a) Masses b) Spaces c) Location Itself
56. 	Perception of Appetite (. . .)
57. 	Kinesthesia
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH:lfg
Copyright © 1970, 1978
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 13 SEPTEMBER 1978
Issue II
Remimeo
Limited Distribution
HCOs
LRH Comms	CLEARS, OTS AND R/SES
Qual Staff
C/Ses		
(Ref: HCOB 12 Sep 78, URGENT! IMPORTANT!
DIANETICS FORBIDDEN ON CLEARS AND OTs.)

If there are any Clears or OTs who are R/Sing they are not R/Sers. It is an entirely different handling, and this handling is incorporated in the New Era Dianetic Rundown for OTs.

If a pre-OT staff member is R/Sing and dramatizing the R/Ses and has therefore been put on an RPF, he is required to receive full handling per the Special NED Rundown for OTs before graduating that RPF. If he is Clear but not yet OT III, he is to get up to and through OT III as fast as possible so he can receive this special rundown.

The New Era Dianetic Rundown for OTs can only be delivered at AOs and at Flag.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH:dr 
Copyright © 1978 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
		
HCO BULLETIN OF 26 AUGUST 1978R
REVISED 5 OCTOBER 1978

Remimeo
(Revisions in this type style)

MORE ON DRUGS

Drug users are apparently sitting on the idea that if you’re numb nothing can hurt you and it’s probably a defense against the physical universe. That’s probably why Objectives pull them out of it.

Drugs are an impression of fear on the physical universe and what it might do to a person.

That is why Objectives work. It reassures them they aren’t going to get bit.

That’s the ambition of the drug culture.

There are several more sensible ways of handling the same problem.

The first of these is exteriorization. One exteriorizes before the impact. Yet drugs often make it impossible to exteriorize.

A second way is to simply control the nerves so they don’t transmit.

A third is not to be in such a protest against pain as it increases the intensity of the thing. It is a fact that pain is a sort of havingness and if a person is processed on wasting and having pain he finds it is just another sensation and he can have it and doesn’t need these other remedies and that it is not that much of a problem.

There are other unwanted sensations that drugs block off but there is a whole sector of desirable sensations and drugs block off all sensations. In spite of the propaganda to the contrary even sexual sensation is blocked off with drugs and this is true even after drugs have apparently heightened it for one or two times, after that it is dead, dead, dead.

The only brief that can be held out for drugs is that they give a short quick oblivion from immediate agony and permit the handling of a person to effect repair. But even then this is applicable to persons who have no other system to handle their pain.

Dexterity, ability and alertness are the main things that prevent getting into painful situations and a primary target of these all vanish with drugs. So drugs set you up to get into situations which are truly disastrous and keep you that way.

One has a choice between being dead with drugs or being alive without them. Drugs rob life of the sensations and joys which are the only reasons for living anyhow.

LRH:gi.dr 	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1978 	Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
		
HCO BULLETIN OF 1 DECEMBER 1978
Remimeo
AOs
SHs
All C/Ses
All Auditors	PROGRAMMING THE DIANETIC CLEAR
Tech/Qual	FOR HIS NEXT STEP
Missions
(Ref: HCOB 24 Sept 78, Iss III,
DIANETIC CLEAR)

The following are the guidelines for programming a Dianetic Clear after he has attested and the state has been declared:

1. 	If a Dianetic Clear has had no previous auditing on Grades 0-IV, you can run him on Quad Grades 0-IV. You omit the R3RA step of service facs. (Ref: HCOB 6 Sept 78, Iss III, ROUTINE THREE SC-A, FULL SERVICE FACSIMILE HANDLING UPDATED WITH NEW ERA DIANETICS.)

2. 	If a Dianetic Clear was incomplete on Grades 0-IV prior to the Dianetic Clear attest (i.e. mid-grades), you would complete the unrun grades (Quad or Expanded) through to Grade IV (omitting the R3RA steps on Service Facs).

	If a pc goes Clear on a grade then you can give him the other grades, but you’d end off that grade and not continue it.

3. 	If a Dianetic Clear has previously completed Grades 0-IV, he can go directly onto the Solo Audit Course and OT 1.

4. 	If a Dianetic Clear is an old-timer who has had a lot of pre-grades Scientology processes run (before formal grades existed). you would not run Grades 0-IV after Dianetic Clear attest. He can be routed onto the Solo Audit Course and OT 1.

The Dianetic Clear is not run on Power, R6EW or the Clearing Course.

IMPORTANT—NEW RUNDOWN

There is even an alternate step to Power specially designed for Dianetic Clears called “Super Power” which will shortly be available in Saint Hills.

AND NOTE: Power Processing is still very valid and a vital step on the Bridge for those persons not Dianetic Clear.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH:nc
Copyright © 1978
By L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 5 DECEMBER 1978

All C/Ses
Auditors
Tech/Qual	
C/S Series 105

HCO	DIANETIC CLEAR ATTESTS—ADDITIONAL DATA

(Ref: 	HCOB 29 Nov 78	C/S Series 104
		DIANETIC CLEAR
		ATTESTS
	
	HCOB 1 Dec 78	PROGRAMMING THE
		DIANETIC CLEAR
		FOR HIS NEXT STEP)

Since the HCOBs on Dianetic Clear have come out there have been many attests and many cases unbugged, and there will continue to be more Dianetic Clears as pcs continue to get standard processing. This bulletin gives some additional guidelines to help smooth the lines and prevent needless stops for the person who has made Dianetic Clear. It will also help handle the person who hasn’t made it so that he may achieve all the gains available to him.

UNACKNOWLEDGED DIANETIC CLEARS

A person who has reached the state of Dianetic Clear without it being acknowledged can run into difficulties afterwards. You may find that he’s been in ethics trouble or had a low OCA or poor case gain since that point.

It’s not only lack of acknowledgement but also invalidation by running certain processes that a Clear wouldn’t respond to, such as engrams, or continuing to run the grades, or continuing Goals Processing, etc.

Also, with Clears and OTs who went Clear before they did the Clearing Course and never knew it or spotted it, bypassed charge results because they are running something which is trying to achieve what they have already achieved. It serves as an overrun .

In the case where a pc has this unacknowledged, invalidated Dianetic Clear state, you would most likely find a point in his auditing where it looks as if he had made it and a slump occurred afterwards. This point could have occurred many years back. If you don’t see a resurgence of the state in an interview or session when the pc mentions when he went Dianetic Clear, the C/S would be to Date/Locate it. (Ref: HCOB 15 Nov 78, DATING AND LOCATING.)

ETHICS

The fact that a person may currently be in ethics trouble is no basis on which to adjudicate whether or not he has achieved the state of Clear. It is not a criterion to be used to refuse to allow the person to attest. Clear is Clear. When a Clear is audited on R3RA, when the state is invalidated or goes unacknowledged, he can get into trouble. So apply this to your understanding and analysis of cases.

The MAA interview and A to J check on the Dianetic Clear Routing Form is not to imply he’s out-ethics but will furnish the C/S with data on the case which may or may not come up in a D of P interview. It will also detect the rare case where the person is attempting to attest in order to save money or for status reasons. In one instance it was discovered that the person routing through was actually a plant. These last examples are a very, very small percentage of the cases.

METER PHENOMENA

When the state of Dianetic Clear has been acknowledged and any inval cleaned off the line, you’ll see a very floppy needle at low sensitivity, an F/N that nothing can break up and, in many cases, a floating TA. A low sensitivity setting (I to 4) will be needed to even keep the needle on the dial, and the TA will be riding between 2.0 and 3.0.

You’ll find in many cases that the meter now reads on the pc’s postulates—i.e., a Clear’s postulates read as a surge. A read therefore does not mean invariably “Yes” or that the question is charged. “No” can read if the pc says it or thinks it to himself as an answer to a question. (Ref: HCOB 18 April 68, NEEDLE REACTIONS ABOVE GRADE IV.)

Bear in mind that you might not get the above meter phenomena immediately on a Dianetic Clear where the state has been bypassed, even though the state is valid.

In some cases the TA and needle can be packed up prior to Date/Locate of the exact time the pc went Clear. The pc may have out-Int to be handled. (The handling of out-Int on a Dianetic Clear is the END OF ENDLESS INT REPAIR RD, HCOB 24 Sep 78R, Rev. 21 Nov 78, Iss 1, Int RD Series 4R.) The person may still be hung up on misrun R3R or Dianetics run after he went Clear, or on some point of eval or inval that has occurred.

If, after a Date/Locate has been correctly done, you’re still not getting the expected meter phenomena, a C/S 53RL assessed and handled precisely by the book and taken to F/Ning assessment will clean up any remaining charge.

You’ll then see a full resurgence of the state, with the pc VVVGIs, a floating, floppy needle at low sensitivity, and a floating TA.

PRIOR DIANETIC CLEARS AND KEYED-OUT CLEARS

The definitions of Dianetic Clear and Keyed-Out Clear in HCOB 24 Sep 78, Iss III, DIANETIC CLEAR, replace the definitions in the Tech Dictionary. The person who attested to Dianetic Clear or Keyed-Out Clear in past years would not necessarily qualify as a Dianetic Clear now, though the chances are good he did make it. Any pc who has attested to Dianetic Clear or Keyed-Out Clear in the past should be called in for an interview and any necessary C/Sing to ascertain the state. This must be adjudicated by an AO C/S or by an org C/S who is Clear.

You will find that many of those who attested to Dianetic Clear earlier on actually did make it, and after confirmation of this they will need to be issued Clear certs and Clear numbers and be properly programmed to move on up the Bridge. (See HCOB 1 Dec 78, PROGRAMMING THE DIANETIC CLEAR FOR HIS NEXT STEP.)

Additionally, where the C/S knows of a case where it looks very likely, from folder study, that the pc went Dianetic Clear but it was unsuspected at the time and never originated, he should have such pcs also called in for confirmation.

THE PERSON WHO HASN’T MADE IT

Where it is obvious that a person who has already been allowed to attest hasn’t attained Dianetic Clear. give the pc a good R-Factor that the person handling the attest cycle didn’t have all the data. He must also be given the R-Factor that he is being programmed so as not to be denied any of the gains on the Grade Chart and so that he will be adequately prepared to do the OT levels. The C/S then programs the case so that this can occur and the pc is informed he should continue with his auditing program.

In the case where the person wanting to attest clearly hasn’t made it, you tell him so. There may be some state he did achieve that he may wish to attest to and he should be allowed to do so.

In both the above cases the person very likely has made some big gain or achieved a new ability, so validate that and give him an appropriate acknowledgement on his win .

NEXT STEP FOR DIANETIC CLEARS

Use HCOB 1 Dec 78, PROGRAMMING THE DIANETIC CLEAR FOR HIS NEXT STEP, as a guide when programming the Dianetic Clear for his next action.

SUMMARY

Keep in mind that a good percentage of the cases you see who by origination want to attest to Dianetic Clear will have achieved the state. If you follow these guidelines and apply the HCOBs on the subject, both those who have attained Dianetic Clear and those who haven’t will be able to move on swiftly up the Bridge on the right gradient .

C/Ses should maintain their Ivory Towers and use the above data and all will go well in this area. It is already going well and this additional data will handle the various situations that have come to light.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH:jk 
Copyright © 1978 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 6 DECEMBER 1978
C/Ses
Tech/Qual
Class IV Grad
REVIVIFICATION

Revivification is the bringing back to life of an engram in which a preclear is stuck. The engram or some portion thereof is being acted out in present time by the preclear It is called a revivification because the engram is suddenly more real to the preclear than present time has ever been. He relives that moment briefly. He does not merely recall or remember it.

This is not the same thing as the “returning” to an incident or engram that is employed in Dianetic auditing. Return is the method of retaining the body and the awareness of the subject in present time while he is told to go back to a certain incident. Revivification is the reliving of an incident or a portion of it as if it were happening now.

This phenomenon can occur in a pc during the End of Endless Int Repair Rundown. (Ref: HCOB 24 Sep 78R, Iss 1, Int RD Series 4R, THE END OF ENDLESS INT REPAIR RUNDOWN.)

The pc, being run on Recalls on Int, will often begin by recalling locks but these can trigger into full play an engram in which he may be stuck and the pc may go into a revivification of it. He will actually be answering and acting from the point or points down the track where he has been stuck.

Should this happen the auditor simply continues to run the process and get the pc through it. As the pc revivifies he blows through these stuck points on his track and comes out of them, newly, and is now truly in present time.

As revivification is apt to occur on the End of Endless Int Repair, auditors must understand and be able to recognize the phenomena and handle it routinely with excellent TRs when it does.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH:cib
Copyright © 1978
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 3 FEBRUARY 1979
Issue II

CONFRONT TECH
HAS TO BE PART OF THE TR CHECKSHEET

The inability to confront is basically caused by withholds and where a person cannot be drilled into confronting, he has to have his withholds pulled.

That he has committed overts and doesn’t want them exposed apparently causes him to withhold his attention and the result is his ability to confront is lessened.

Also where a person has overts on a subject and is withholding, he has a tendency to complicate that subject and cannot get down to its basic simplicities. The world looks very complicated to him, probably because his attention is wrapped up in his withholds instead of on his real problems or the subject.

The new discovery here is that a person who has overts and withholds on a subject cannot perform in that area and introduces complexities, for of course they can’t confront it.

Where a person cannot take responsibility for his withholds and he is not benefiting casewise from giving them up, he is half dead as a being. It is a vicious circle: he began to commit overts because he couldn’t confront things and then withheld what he had done. Because he had withholds and could not confront, he began to take heavy drugs and alcohol. These pushed him toward deadness and further worsened his ability to confront and even caused him to commit further overts which he then withheld and this further deteriorated his ability to confront. And all this traces back to the fact that he couldn’t confront in the first place. There is nothing more irresponsible than a dead man. And when confront drops and withholds enter in, one has entered the death slide as a being.

This vicious circle can be handled in processing at various levels and will unsnarl and the person will become alive and able to confront. But the first steps of it, and ones which could carry him well up the ladder, are the drills of the TR Course if done properly and over and over in rotation each time to a win on each particular drill.

Truly, the world begins anew by regaining the ability to confront.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH: jk 
Copyright © 1979 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 3 FEBRUARY 1979
Issue I
CORRECTED AND REISSUED 8 FEBRUARY 1979
Remimeo
(Also issued as HCO PL same date and title.)

CHANGE THE CIVILIZATION 
EVAL

POLICY:  A course consists of a checksheet, theory and practical.

To audit or even do courses requires an ability to confront and communicate and this is brought about on the TRs Course.

People who can’t confront can have trouble communicating, reading meters, studying or even detecting what is going on.
(See Cumulative Index, Vol X Technical Bulletins)

SITUATION:  TRs AND TECH ARE OUT INTERNATIONALLY.

STATS:  Refunds high .

	Majority of Sea Org staff with incomplete courses.

	Lots of blown students.

DATA:  Auditors pulled in for training couldn’t do TRs even though they were trained and had been auditors for years. (OMITTED TRs—COURSES THEY TOOK PREVIOUSLY)

Supervisors didn’t know key TR HCOBs, didn’t know that you cycle a student through the TRs, not stick him in on one TR for weeks and give him a lose, yet it is clearly expressed in HCOBs. (OMITTED INFORMATION, WRONG TARGET—TR SUPERVISORS)

When I teach a course it takes a week or 6 weeks depending on the course. When it is exported the same course and the same materials can take up to 9 months. (ADDED TIME—SUPERS)

Auditors who had supposedly been trained misread and missed reads on meters. (OMITTED CONFRONTS—AUDITORS)

People who go to writing courses in college almost never become writers. (OMITTED PRODUCTS—COLLEGES)

The common experience of students is they can’t do what they’re trained to do after they’ve been “trained” yet the civilization is spending countless billions on “education.” (CONTRARY FACTS—CONTEMPORARY TEACHERS)

The “service facsimile” which is processed at Grade IV of Scientology grade processing handles the almost universally present aberration of making others wrong. (ADDED ABERRATION—TEACHERS)

Few teachers are Grade IV Releases. (OMITTED SCIENTOLOGY— TEACHERS)

Because their TRs and metering were out, auditors have not been producing uniformly spectacular results and have not been getting pcs smoothly through their grades. (OMITTED CONFRONT—AUDITORS)

CS-4s who have the responsibility for making up checksheets for courses continue to export a TRs Course without a checksheet that had to be done first before doing TRs. (OMITTED CHECKSHEET—CS-4s)

The identical situation of sticking students in at each TR and making them lose, instead of cycling them through TRs to a win each time was found on Flag some years. ago and remedied with an HCOB. Yet the HCOB is unknown, partially because there is no checksheet on the TRs Course. (OMITTED PRESERVATION OF TECHNOLOGY—FLB)

TR Courses over the world uniformly have been taught without being preceded by a theory period. (OMITTED THEORY—TRs COURSE SUPERVISORS)

OUTPOINT COUNT:

OMITTED—9	SUPERVISORS—4
WRONG TARGET—1	TEACHERS—3
ADDED—2	AUDITORS—2
CONTRARY FACTS—1	PREVIOUS COURSES—1	COLLEGES—1	
	CS-4s—1	
	FLB—1

WHY:  THERE IS NO CHECKSHEET FOR THE TRs COURSE WHICH IS STUDIED BEFORE THE STUDENT DOES HIS TRs.

ETHICS WHY:  TARGETTING STUDENTS TOWARD A LOSE BECAUSE THEY ARE DRAMATIZING THEIR SERVICE FACS.

WHO:  MAJORITY OF PROFESSORS, TEACHERS, ETC.

IDEAL SCENE:  A TRs COURSE TAUGHT AS A COURSE WITH A PROPER CHECKSHEET AND SUPERVISED BY SUPERVISORS WHO ARE NOT DRAMATIZING A SERVICE FAC OR MAKING OTHERS WRONG AND TRAINING AUDITORS WHO CAN CONFRONT AND COMMUNICATE AND IN ADDITION TO HANDING THEIR PCs SO AS TO OBTAIN UNIFORMLY SPECTACULAR WINS, MAY ALSO EVENTUALLY REACH THE REST OF THE TEACHERS IN THE WORLD SO THAT THEY TOO WILL TEACH STUDENTS TO A WIN.

HANDLING:

BRIGHT IDEA:  Do a checksheet of the TRs Course and retread all auditors who are not making it on it and TRs.

1. 	Compile the checksheet.
LRH TECHNICAL	
COMPILATIONS 	DONE

2. 	Push all students now on courses on through their courses without interupting their studies by making them redo the course.	
DIRECTORS OF
TRAINING	_____

3. 	Immediately get the checksheet being applied and the TRs Course redone at the intern level, in the first internship any auditor I/T enters.
QUAL SECS	_____

4. 	Enforce certificate expiration if the person has not done the internship for the level he is certified for.
DIRs OF VALIDITY	_____

5. 	Sell the new TRs Course in one internship.
REGS	_____

6. 	Deliver the new TRs Course complete with checksheet and in practical, cycling through the TRs to a minor win on each instead of sticking the student into one TR at a time to a completion of that TR and so giving them countless loses and extending the course endlessly. But make sure that on the alternate cycle through, they’re doing Hard TRs flawlessly.

SUPERS	_____

6A. 	Institute the new TRs Course at the beginning of major courses for those students who enter a major course in the future, and at the beginning of any major course substitute the new TRs Course for any existing TRs Course on the checksheet.
DIRECTORS OF 
TRAINING	_____

7. 	Make DRD and Grade IV a prerequisite for the post of Supervisor and get all Supervisors now on, up to that without removing them from post in a minimum period of time.
HCO	_____

8. 	On all auditors who are failing order a complete modern TRs Course as in Targets 5 and 6, as the only acceptable first cramming order. Time machine it for 2 weeks full time and 6 weeks maximum if done part time.

CRAMMING 
OFFICERS	_____

8A. 	Do not require auditors to “drill TRs” in the morning or evening as TRs do not fall out. Ref: HCOB 9 tan 79, BTB CANCELLATION. Instead, get them through a Hard TRs Course in their study time.

QUAL SEC	_____

9. 	Where the new TRs Course is not running well, inspect and verify that Supervisors exist, that this HCOB is known the WHAT IS A COURSE? P/L is in on the TRs Course or any other reason found and the Supervisors gotten up to Grade IV Release.
LRH COMM	_____

10. 	Only bother to correct other auditor or admin errors after it’s verified that the persons sent to Cramming have successfully completed the modern TRs Course to wins on the theory and every TR. When the new TRs Course is obviously and beyond any reasonable doubt fully passed by the auditor, only then and in the future for that auditor, engage in any cramming actions. Do not require that he do the TRs Course again unless it is clearly evident that he failed it the first time.

CRAMMING 
OFFICER	_____

11. 	If this program is not working, if refunds do not drop, if org stats do not rise, debug this HCOB as it applies to any org or area and get it in and get it working.
	LRH COMM	_____

12. 	Program out how we’re going to use this to get this civilization functioning.
GUARDIAN
WORLDWIDE	_____

13. 	Report all wins and successes with this HCOB to CS-4.

THOSE APPLYING
THIS PROGRAM	_____

14. 	Take ethics actions on those who refuse to apply this program.

EO/SENIOR EO
INT	_____

15. 	Teach students to a win.
EVERYBODY
TRAINING
ANYONE	_____

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

for the

BOARDS OF DIRECTORS 
of the 
CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY

BDCS:LRH:jk 
Copyright © 1979 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 9 FEBRUARY 1979

Remimeo
(Also issued as HCO PL 9 Feb 79.
Issue II. same title.)

HOW TO DEFEAT VERBAL TECH

1. 	If it isn’t written it isn’t true.

2. 	If it’s written, read it.

3. 	If you can’t understand it, clarify it.

4. 	If you can’t clarify it, clear the Mis-Us.

5. 	If the Mis-Us won’t clear, query it.

6. 	Get it validated as a written order.

7. 	Force others to read it.

IF IT CAN’T BE RUN THROUGH AS ABOVE IT’S FALSE!

L. RON HUBBARD 
Founder 
LRH:dg.kc.ch.cib 
Copyright © 1979 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 15 FEBRUARY 1979
Remimeo
Tech	(Also issued as HCO PL 15 Feb 79, same title.)
Qual
HCO	
VERBAL TECH: PENALTIES	

(Ref: HCOB/HCO PL 9 Feb 79.	
HOW TO DEFEAT VERBAL TECH)

ANY PERSON FOUND TO BE USING VERBAL TECH SHALL BE SUBJECT TO A COURT OF ETHICS.

THE CHARGES ARE: GIVING OUT DATA WHICH IS CONTRARY TO HCO BULLETINS OR POLICY LETTERS, OR OBSTRUCTING THEIR USE OR APPLICATION, CORRUPTING THEIR INTENT, ALTERING THEIR CONTENT IN ANY WAY, INTERPRETING THEM VERBALLY OR OTHERWISE FOR ANOTHER, OR PRETENDING TO QUOTE THEM WITHOUT SHOWING THE ACTUAL ISSUE.

ANY ONE OF THESE CATEGORIES CONSTITUTES VERBAL TECH AND IS ACTIONABLE PER THE ABOVE.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH: jk 
Copyright © 1979 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
	
HCO BULLETIN OF 5 MARCH 1979R
REVISED 6 MARCH 1979
Remimeo
All Orgs
All Missions	(Revisions in this type style)
C/Ses	(Ellipsis indicates deletion)
Auditors
Ds of P
Tech
Quay
HCO
Ethics Officers
KOTs	
DIANETIC CLEAR FALSE DECLARES

Any org or mission staff declaring a Dianetic Clear “achieved in other practices” is subject to expulsion from the Church.

Technically, a very few thetans have never been anything but Clear. These few didn’t “go Clear” on anything; they have simply always been Clear. When a natural Clear is found it should be so stated. To assign this condition to some other practice is a suppression of Dianetics and Scientology.

Anyone evaluating for or feeding a preclear data to persuade him to declare Dianetic Clear is also actionable....

Anyone suppressively validating squirrel practices or groups by stating they are producing Dianetic Clears is also actionable as above, as it is not possible. It requires the exact application of Scientology and/or Dianetic technology to bring a preclear up to the state of Clear.

Falsely declaring a person a Dianetic Clear who isn’t, and failing to declare one who made it on Dianetics or the Clearing Course or who has always been Clear, are also actionable.

People don’t go Clear in garbage eating or psychiatry—they perish. Thus herding people into their hands by falsely validating them is suppressive.

Any and all such false declares are canceled.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH:kjm 
Copyright © 1979 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 24 SEPTEMBER 1979

Remimeo
All Tech/Qual
Cramming Hat
Cramming Series 19

FLYING RUDS IN CRAMMING

(Ref: 	HCOB 15 Oct 74 	Cramming Series 15
		CRAMMING OVER OUT-RUDS
	HCOB 2 Jun 78R 	Cramming Series 18R
	Rev. 14.6.78 	CRAMMING REPAIR ASSESSMENT LIST)

Per HCOB 15 Oct 74 CRAMMING OVER OUT-RUDS, a Cramming Officer must not try to cram over out-ruds. Despite this, there still have been instances of persons being “handled” in cramming without the ruds having been gotten in, so no handling got done at all.

HOW TO FLY RUDS IN CRAMMING

TO BEGIN ANY CRAMMING OF ANYONE, ASSESS THE RUDS INCLUDING OVERTS, INVALIDATION AND EVALUATION AND FLY ANY THAT READ. THEN WHEN YOU HAVE CLEARED UP THE READS TO F/Ns AND HAVE AN F/N, BEGIN THE EXACT CRAMMING ORDERS INDICATED.

You can mimeo a small form on which to assess these and mark reads which will save time. The form would look like this:

“Do you have ......

or,

“On (subject), do you have ......

an ARC break?” 	_____
a present time problem?” 	_____
a withhold?” 	_____
an overt?”	_____

“Has there been any ......

invalidation?” 	_____
evaluation?”	_____

The Cramming Officer would assess on the form above and clip it to the worksheets.

PREVIOUSLY MISDONE CRAMMING

Misdone crammings and failure to fly the ruds in cramming will mess up staff members, and undisclosed overts and withholds will prevent any gain, not just in auditing but in Word Clearing or cramming or other Qual corrective actions.

Resistance to cramming, protest of cramming or natter about cramming, or other Qual corrective actions are indicative of out-ruds, especially overts and withholds against cramming or Qual or on the subject on which the cramming order was written.

These symptoms of resistance or natter can also stem from having been crammed over out-ruds in the past, or having been mishandled in cramming.

The way to handle someone who has been crammed over out-ruds in the past is to assess the following and fly each reading line to F/N:

“Have you been crammed over .....

an ARC break?” 	_____
a present time problem?” 	_____
a withhold?” 	_____
an overt?” 	_____
any invalidation?” 	_____
any evaluation?”	_____

If someone is nattery about Cramming, Qual correction actions, or Qual, use the assessment above on the subject of their complaint. E.g. you could assess: “Have
you been Word Cleared over 	?”

If the above does not resolve the matter fully, use the Cramming Repair Assessment List (HCOB 2 Jun 78R), or other specific list such as the Word Clearing Correction List (WCCL).

CRAMMING OFFICER QUALIFICATIONS

Because the Cramming Officer is required to do these actions, he or she must get checked out on how to do them. Possibly a reason why some did not fly the ruds despite HCOB 15 Oct 74 CRAMMING OVER OUT-RUDS, is that the Cramming Officer did not know how to fly ruds and had not gotten himself trained to do so, then either didn’t fly ruds before he attempted to do the cramming order, or did not do the cramming order at all “because the ruds were out.” Both of these errors show an effect attitude that no real Cramming Officer (or Scientologist for that matter), would be guilty of. Cramming Officers get tech in and being applied, staff members successful and winning on their post and are therefore very causative.

A CRAMMING OFFICER MUST GET CHECKED OUT ON FLYING RUDS AND OVERTS AS THESE ARE VITAL TECH OF THE CRAMMING HAT. IF A CLASSED AUDITOR, HE MUST GET CHECKED OUT ON USE OF CORRECTION LISTS SUCH AS THE CRAMMING REPAIR ASSESSMENT LIST, WCCL, ETC. FAILURE TO CHECK OUT ON AND USE THE TECH OF THE POST IS AN ETHICS MATTER.

WORKSHEETS

The worksheets (W/Ses) of all such actions (i.e. ruds, Word Clearing, crammings, Cramming Repair Lists, Product Debug Assessments and any other Qual corrective action), are put in the pc folder and sent to the Case Supervisor (C/S). The C/S will correct any out-tech or failure to fully handle, and in the case of no F/N at Exams or other out-tech, red tags the folder, until the matter is fully repaired.

These worksheets must be complete, accurate and legible. In the case of a non F/N exam or other bad indicator, these have rush priority and must be handled fast. All the rules regarding worksheets apply to cramming and any other Qual corrective actions.

IS A C/S NEEDED
BEFORE FLYING RUDS IN CRAMMING?

Someone may wonder if he needs to get a C/S to fly the ruds before doing so in a cramming action. The answer is: no. You do not need to get the pc’s folder to the C/S before you fly the ruds in cramming. To do so would make an unnecessary delay, and you don’t need a C/S to fly somebody’s ruds. The C/S (Case Supervisor instruction) is contained in this issue, and that is what you do.

FOLDER CHECK BEFORE CRAMMING

Sometimes a staff member has been known to have been started on and left incomplete on several different actions. E.g. the staff member is started on a cramming order, but before this is complete, someone starts doing a Crashing Misunderstood handling on him, they end for lunch and after lunch someone tries to start yet another action on the staff member. This is a serious situation indeed and it could be enough to spin somebody. So it is mandatory that before starting an action, you must check the folder first. Cramming orders and flying ruds in cramming and other Qual corrective actions do not require C/S OK before doing them as this would put an unnecessary and arbitrary delay on the line, and could be used as an excuse not to do the action. (E.g. “I couldn’t fly his ruds because I didn’t have a C/S to ‘fly the ruds’, so I didn’t do anything.”) But since one would not start a new cycle in the middle of another incomplete cycle, and would not try to fly ruds or word clear over mutant or out-lists (provided these really were out and not just a false or protest read), the folder must be checked by the person who is going to do the action (this only takes a minute to do).

BEFORE STARTING A CRAMMING OR OTHER QUAL CORRECTIVE ACTION, LOOK IN THE FOLDER TO ENSURE THE PERSON ISN’T IN THE MIDDLE OF ANOTHER QUAL CORRECTIVE ACTION, OR C/SED TO GET A FLUBBED ACTION REPAIRED. AFTER THE CRAMMING OR OTHER QUAL CORRECTIVE ACTION, SEND THE FOLDER TO THE CASE SUPERVISOR WITH LEGIBLE WORKSHEETS ON WHAT YOU DID AND THE EXAM FORM.

FESing

If a person has been “crammed” or has had other Qual corrective actions and has gotten worse, or made no improvement, then get all Qual corrective actions done on the person FESed by the Case Supervisor, and a program and C/S to repair these, and get that program done. Comm Ev anyone who interrupts or cross-orders or prevents such a program from being done, as that would be suppressive. Such a program has the priority of repairing a flubbed session and the folder is red tagged, until handled.

USE THE TECH

There are several new Qual corrective actions as well as all the earlier tools of cramming. These produce spectacular results when done correctly. Use this tech to make greatly enhanced staff members.

YOUR CRAMMING WILL BE MANY TIMES MORE EFFECTIVE AND POPULAR IF YOU DO IT WITH THE CORRECT TECH.

LRH:DM:gal 	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1979 	Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard As assisted by
ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDSnr C/S Int

HCOB 24.9.79
ATTACHMENT 1

You can mimeo a small form on which to assess these and mark reads which will save time. The form would look like this:

“Do you have ......

or,

“On (subject) . do you have ...... 

an ARC break?”	_____

a present time problem?” 	_____

a withhold?”	_____

an overt?”	_____

“Has there been any ......

invalidation?” 	_____

evaluation?”	_____

The Cramming Officer would assess on the form above and clip it to the worksheets.

HCOB 24.9.79
ATTACHMENT 2

The way to handle someone who has been crammed over out-ruds in the past is to assess the following and fly each reading line to F/N:

“Have you been crammed over ...... 

an ARC break?” 	_____

a present time problem?” 	_____

a withhold?”	_____

an overt?”	_____

any invalidation?” 	_____

any evaluation?”	_____

If someone is nattery about Cramming, Qual Correction actions, or Qual, use the assessment above on the subject of their complaint. E.g. you could assess: “Have you been word cleared over _____?”

If the above does not resolve the matter fully, use the Cramming Repair Assessment List (HCOB 2 Jun 78R), or other specific list such as the Word Clearing Correction List (WCCL).

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
	
HCO BULLETIN OF 21 DECEMBER 1979
Remimeo
Case Supervisors
Cramming Officers
Ds of P
Ds of T
Dir Correction
Tech/Qual	
C/S Series 107
Cramming Series 20
Qual Corrective Actions on OTs Series 1

AUDITOR ASSIGNMENT POLICIES,
CRAMMING ASSIGNMENT POLICIES

(Ref: HCOB 23 Jul AD19 AUDITOR ASSIGNMENT POLICIES)

We have long had the rule that auditor-pc assignments must be by comparable grade and class. Reasons for this are given in HCOB 23 Jul AD19, which also sets the policy: “Therefore it is policy not to assign an auditor whose grade and class is less than that of the pc.”

This policy becomes even more important when handling assignments on pre-OTs, because if the auditor were of lower case grade it would prevent the pre-OT from communicating to the auditor and the auditor not being aware of or trained on the materials of the level of case of the pre-OT, would not be able to audit that pre-OT and would risk disaster for the pre-OT as well as himself.

As Cramming Officers fly ruds in Cramming and as some of the Cramming and Qual corrective actions can get into a person’s case, this policy is extended to apply to Cramming Officers, as well as auditors.

Therefore the following policies apply:

1. 	IT IS POLICY NOT TO ASSIGN AN AUDITOR WHOSE GRADE AND CLASS IS LESS THAN THAT OF THE PC. (HCOB 23 Jul AD19)

2. 	IT IS POLICY TO ASSIGN ONLY GOOD PROVEN AUDITORS TO GOOD AUDITORS. (HCOB 23 Jul AD19)

3. 	IT IS POLICY NOT TO ASSIGN NON-OT CRAMMING OFFICERS TO OTs AND THE CRAMMING OFFICER MUST NOT BE OF LOWER CASE LEVEL THAN THE OT.

4. 	A PERSON WHO HAS BEEN AUDITED ON NED FOR OTs, MAY ONLY BE AUDITED OR CRAMMED BY A NED FOR OTs AUDITOR.

The terms “auditor” and “Cramming Officer” in these policies above are intended to include anyone acting in the capacity of an auditor or Cramming Officer and the fact that one is not a trained or posted auditor or Cramming Officer does not permit one to do auditing or Qual corrective actions in violation of the policies above.

These policies apply to any auditing actions and to Qual corrective actions such as Why Finding, metered debug actions, False Data Stripping, Confessionals (whether done in Qual or HCO), Clay Table auditing and these policies are intended to apply to any new Qual corrective actions released in the future.

Subjective questions and metered actions which lead into a person’s case are not OK on OTs. Such actions are not advised on lower level cases either, unless these have been C/Sed for and are part of standard tech. Otherwise this type of action is only a covert way of auditing the person while not calling it auditing and is forbidden in C/S Series 29 CASE ACTIONS, OFFLINE. Nonstandard actions or interviews done by untrained persons whose TRs and metering are out are especially forbidden, as detrimental to cases. Definition of “subjective”: “Consultation with the preclear’s own universe, with his mock ups, and with his own thoughts and considerations.” (COHA, page 167) “Recall, think, remember or return on the time track processes are subjective.” (HCOB 2 Nov 57RA)

There are actions which are OK to do in Cramming. These are not related to the person’s case. They relate to his post and performance. These are objective questions or actions. Definition of “objective”: “Of or having to do with a material object as distinguished from a mental concept, idea or belief.” (Dictionary) “Means here and now objects in PT as opposed to ‘subjective’.” (HCOB 2 Nov 57RA) Questions or actions by the Cramming Officer which are objective and pertain to the person’s post, the materials which cover his post or that he is studying, clearing words misunderstood, hatting actions and post or Product Debugs (provided subjective questions are not asked on OTs) are all OK. The most usual and successful cramming action is simply to take the materials or text that covers the subject of the cramming order and word clear and cram those materials. This is always safe and OK to do. (The only other caution is not to give verbal data, nor to evaluate or invalidate or throw the person’s ruds out while doing the cram!)

It is not that OTs are difficult to handle. To the contrary OTs are far easier and faster to handle than non-OTs. But OT cases must be handled as OT cases or the person doing the handling risks invalidation of case level of the OT and could get into aspects of the case that he/she knows nothing about and is thus incapable of handling or repairing. OTs when handled on the appropriate auditing and Qual corrective actions for their state of case by auditors, Cramming Officers and C/Ses who are qualified to do so, make very fast and spectacular gains.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

As assisted by
Senior C/S Int

LRH:DM:kim
Copyright © 1979
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

6207C19 SHSpec-172 The E-Meter

The E-meter was devised as an aid to help an auditor observe a PC.  It certainly beats fingers on pulses!  The first Mathison meter wasn’t built as a modified wheatstone bridge.  Until E-meters were developed, people thought such galvanometers were reading sweat, not thought, because the earlier galvanometers were so insensitive.  Engineers and electronics men in scientology have not always recognized the possibility of a meter that directly reads electric thought-impulses, not the physical results of these thought-impulses.  Home-made E-meters built by people who do know something about psychogalvanometers, often have a built-in lag which is meant to “protect the movement”.  The needle is damped down, so reads are late, you read “sweat”, etc.  Hence no instant reads.

The first Mathison meter wouldn’t read on a large percentage of people, so LRH got Mathison to expand it.  By the end of 1952, we had a pretty good meter.  The very first meter had tiny electrodes -- little metal bars -- and didn’t give mental reads.  LRH and Jim Elliot got the idea of using soup cans, which did result in being able to get reads.

The E-meter can detect whether a PC is auditable.  It is a coincidence that it just happens that when you can read a PC on a meter, that PC is in good shape.  When a person’s needle is in a constant agitated rockslam, e.g. with a real manic-depressive or schitzophrenic psychotic, no metered process works on them anyway.  CCH’s are all you can use.  Fortunately, they are available.  If you can read the meter on him, he can be audited on a think process, e.g. prepchecking.

The meter ran us into a complete cul-de-sac.  We had had knowledge of the whole track before, but the meter made it clear how many engrams there were. This made dianetics look wrong.  As long as you audited only this lifetime, you could make someone look very good, but it was obviously impossible to run out every engram on the whole track, because the number is infinite.

LRH, in the past, had refused to let PCs be subjected to experimental processes because they might get their heads blown off.  Sometimes he used himself as a guinea pig for that reason.   

The board of the first Dianetic Foundation started to resign when LRH started looking at whole track.  They discovered at that point that Hubbard could get mad!  His attitude was that no one was going to say what could or could not be researched.  They decided that he must not be clear!

At that time, which was the time of early research with the E-meter and A History of Man (1952), LRH and MSH went down to the library and started looking up words.  They came up with “scio” and “-ology”.  This seemed to express what we wanted: moving out of the field of the mind into the field of knowing.  The mind is only a vessel of knowledge, so a new approach was required.  Exteriorization started coming up.  LRH and MSH went to Phoenix. One night, Evans Farber showed up And wouldn’t go away.  LRH finally asked him what he wanted and found that he had discovered the process, “Try not to be three feet back of your head,” as an exteriorization process.

That was practically the end of the E-meter, because you can’t read a thetan who is out of his head. LRH tried to develop a Theta-meter.  The trouble was that it detected the auditor as well as the thetan who was the PC because it didn’t require one to be exterior to read on it.  It was very simple, electronically.  It used a “magic eye” type detector.

In about 1955 or 1956, E-meters went out of use.  They revived after the Clearing ACC [Probably in 5802C07 19ACC-15 “Help -- How to get Started” and 5802C13 19ACC19 “Other processes -- the Help Button”. Other tape titles from this ACC may be more relevant, but I don’t have them.]  in the U.S., when LRH assessed people with the meter.  Don Breeding, Joe Wallace, Pinkham and others were working on meters, and one of them designed a transistorized E-meter in 1957.  It was found to be very useful in clearing people.  It was used with a five-way help bracket to clear fifteen or twenty out of seventy people, as long as LRH did the assessment.  We know now that the people who went clear were those who had a beingness goal and chose the terminal of that beingness goal to run on the five-way help.  They made a first dynamic keyed-out clear. That is, you could clear anyone with help whose terminal was also his goal. The trick of assessment was to find the Rock, which would sometimes coincide with the wording of a goal.

This got meters back in, when it became clear that you wouldn’t clear anyone without a meter.  This was horrible, because LRH had never been able to teach an auditor to use one.  Not that he had tried very hard.  The Step Six phenomenon that was run into not long afterwards was the result of running someone on a button that wasn’t on his goal line, not from creativeness beefing up the bank, per se.  If his goal was run out or desensitized, you could then run any creative process with no bad effect.  Otherwise, the button of alteration of creativeness can get activated, which is the bank-creator. [See pp. 285-287, above.] When a bank starts to go solid, that’s no fun.

The difficulties of auditors finding a correct Rock loomed enormously. We now had two factors that were missing:

1. We needed technology that would unwind any accidental out of this package of clearing, so there would be no unknown data.

2. We needed to get to the point where an auditor could interpret the data we did find.   

The first British meters were copies of American meters.  Fowler and Allen built them, at first, with no idea of what they were building.  One day LRH sat Allen down and ran a responsibility process on him on whatever he was looking at, put him on the meter, located his dead war-companion that he felt he had overts on, and found that he was looking at a window, surrounded by blackness.  He ran responsibility for this scene and got more and more room in the picture.  Suddenly, he got the whole sequence, with full kinesthesia, all sensations, and no more stuck picture.  LRH explained bits and pieces about the E-meter to Fowler and Allen.  They went on to build the Mark II, III, and eventually the Mark IV, with an improved circuit.  They also worked on an OT meter.

The job of the meter is still what it always was: to detect what the PC has in the reactive bank.  It is incidental that the meter detects ruds, problems, or what the PC is thinking or doing, or whatever.  What we need most is to know what he has in the bank, so that the bank can be assessed.  The E-meter has been designed and must be designed to detect the PC’s prime postulate.  Otherwise you won’t clear anyone.  If a meter won’t detect a prime postulate in an individual. it is useless, even if it could be used to get ruds in.  A good meter must be very sensitive, yet not pick up everything that the PC is doing physically.

But this has not been the main liability of meters.  The liability has always been auditor reading.  Now that this has been singled out as the weakest point in auditing, it can get fixed.  Also, more is known now about meter reads and auditor ability.  All the auditor is missing on is certainty on whether the needle read or is clean.  Trouble with knowing when it read is solved by not looking until you say the last syllable and by drilling on when the needle is or isn’t reading.

So all auditors must learn to read an E-meter, or they simply cannot audit.  You have to be able to detect the thing in the mind that is keeping the PC from being clear.  You ve got to learn to read meters.  A good, safe auditor can read a meter; an unsafe one cannot. 

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 11 APRIL 1977

Remimeo
Level III
Level IV
Snr Class IV	LIST ERRORS
Ex Dn	CORRECTION OF
All Cl IV Auditors

It has been found that the correction of lists, a very vital piece of tech, has been a source of confusion in the field as it apparently has never been written up in an issue. It really is simple if you know your Laws of L & N.

VERIFYING A LIST

The correct procedure for verifying/correcting past L & Ns is to check the items as to whether or not they are correct. Then do an L4BRA on each list where the item is found to be incorrect. You would have to orient the pc to the listing question and the item. You do not direct the question to see if it read. And don’t just do an L4BRA and then not find the right item for the pc as part of the handling (unless the question proves to be uncharged or some such).

NULLING A LIST

One nulls a list when he doesn’t get a BD F/N item on listing. The Laws of L & N strictly apply. An L4BRA would be used if the action bogs with still no item found. One would also null lists the pc made where no item had been found such as a 2WC which turned into a listing action with the pc giving off items or a list the pc somehow made while not on a meter. In these cases there is no item to verify with the pc as correct. Just cull the items into a list, work out with the pc what the question was if it’s not already noted, and null the list.

RECONSTRUCTING A LIST

Sometimes you just don’t have the list and can’t get it or it’s an old Why Finding or PTS interview for which there are no worksheets. In this case you get from the pc what the question was and then get him to give you the items that were already on the list as the item probably was already on the list and you don’t want the pc to get into newly listing the question in PT and then getting into an overlisting situation. Just get him to give you the items he had already put on the list and more often than not you will get a BD F/N item. If you don’t get the item that way then you can extend the list.

SELF-LISTING

Watch it on these as every random stray thought a person has about “why this or that” does not mean it’s a self-list. But do look for it on a person who is manifesting the horrendous BPC an out list can generate, who is introspected or has been trying to figure out who is doing him in after just having seen the Ethics Officer. Just don’t get into trying to make a list out of some non-standard listing question that won’t give you an item. And actually the usual reason for self-listing is a prior wrong L & N item or an item not found. People will self-list to try to find the right item. So find and correct the earlier out list.

LIST CORRECTION BLOW-UP

When you are going along correcting lists and suddenly you get a big pc blow-up and it is not resolving on the list you are correcting you had better quickly realize that you probably are not correcting the list that is out and you’d better find out which list it is. There is usually an earlier out list to be found, if the list you are correcting does not resolve the upset.

LISTS NOT READING

When you start getting key lists such as Grades III and IV not reading and no items found it’s time for that auditor to get a thorough overhaul on his metering, eyesight and to get off all his MUs on L & N. You also could be setting the pc up for a self-listing situation as he has been given the listing question but no item has been found. So be very sure the question did not read even with Suppress and Inval and TRs were in before getting off a key L & N process.

USE OF L4BRA

The prepared list L4BRA corrects L & N lists. It can be run on old lists, current lists, general listing. When a pc is ill after a listing and nulling session or up to 3 days after, always suspect that a listing action done on the pc had an error in it and get those lists corrected.

Sometimes it is obvious what the error was per the Laws of Listing and Nulling. For example there could be two reading items left on the list in which case you would know to extend the list as it has been underlisted. If this didn’t go, then an L4BRA would be done on the list.

HANDLING AN L4BRA

You handle reading questions on the L4BRA by the directions under the question that read. You don’t just 2WC these questions. For example say question 4 read on the L4BRA, “Is a list incomplete? SF.” You then ask the pc, “What list is incomplete?” Locate it and get it completed to a BD F/N item. You don’t just 2WC “incomplete lists” to an F/N and leave it at that.

By the way the L4BRA is missing a line which is “Was it the first item on the list?” This is being added as it’s quite common that it is the first item and is most often missed.

DO IT RIGHT

An out list can create more concentrated hell with a pc than any other single auditing error. So it’s imperative that listing errors get properly corrected.

The best thing to do is to have the Laws of Listing and Nulling drilled line by line and down cold and just do it right in the first place. Then you will also see at once where old lists violated these laws and you will not be yourself doing lists that have to be corrected later.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

Assisted by
CS-4/5
LRH:JE:dr 
Copyright © 1977 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 17 MARCH 1974
Remimeo

TWC CHECKSHEETS
TWC, USING WRONG QUESTIONS

Two Way Comm is not an art. It is a science which has exact rules.

Foremost in the rules is:

DON’T USE A LISTING QUESTION IN TWO WAY COMM.

By a “listing question” is meant any question which directly or indirectly calls for items in the pc’s answer.

Use of “who”, “what”, “which” instantly turns a TWC into a listing question.

Listing questions are governed by the rules of Listing and Nulling.

If you use a listing question accidentally in TWC you can get the same bad reactions from a pc that you would get on a wrongly done list.

The reason for pc upsets in TWC is hidden as it is not apparently a listing process, rarely gets the correction a bad list would get.

Asking “who” or “what” or “which” during a TWC after the main question can also turn it into a Listing and Nulling process.

TWC questions MUST be limited to feelings, reactions, significances. They must NEVER ask for terminals or locations.

EXAMPLE: “Who upset you?” in TWC causes the pc to give items. This is a LIST. “What are you upset about?” does the same thing. “Which town were you happiest in?” is also a LISTING question NOT a TWC question. Any of these results in the pc giving items. They are not then nulled or correctly indicated. The pc can get VERY upset just as he would with a wrong list. Yet the session is not a “listing session” so never gets corrected.

EXAMPLE: “How are you doing lately?” is an example of a correct TWC question. It gets off charge and gets no list items. “Are you better these days than you used to be?” “How have you been since the last session?”

“What happened” is different than “What illness”, “What person”, “What town” which are listing questions.
REPAIR

When other things fail to locate the upset of a pc look into TWC processes in the folder and treat them as L&N processes where the pc has answered with items. The relief is magical.

LRH: ntm.rd 	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1974 	Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 20 APRIL 1972
Issue II
Remimeo
C/S Series 78

PRODUCT PURPOSE AND WHY AND
WC ERROR CORRECTION

Where untrained Auditors are finding Whys for a Danger Formula, or post purposes or post products as called for in the Est O System you will get a certain amount of error and case disturbance. Such upsets also come from word clearing by incompetent persons.

The C/S should look for these especially when such campaigns are in progress. He should suspect them as a possibility when a case bogs.

A C/S must be sure all such papers and worksheets get into pc’s folders.

A common repair action is to

1. 	Do an assessment for type of charge.

2. 	Handle the charge found by the assessment done.

3. 	Fly all the reading items found on such assessments by 2wc or direct handling.

4. 	Suspect LISTING ERRORS on any Why or purpose or product found even though no list exists and reconstruct the list and L4B and handle it.

5. 	Handle word clearing of any type in or out of session with a Word Clear Correction List done in session by an Auditor.

6. 	When word clearing is too heavy on the pc or doesn’t clean up suspect he has been thrown into implants which are mostly words or the words in some engram. As Implants are actually just engrams, handle it with an L3B.

LISTING

Any item found out of session or by a non-auditor is suspect of being a Listing and Nulling (L&N) error even though no list was made.

TODAY A CORRECT L&N ITEM MUST BD AND F/N.

So treat such items as you would list errors and try to reconstruct the list and either confirm the item or locate the real item (may have been invalidated and suppressed) or extend the list and get the real item.

The real item will BD F/N.

One can establish what the situation is with a post purpose, a Why or a product or any other such item by doing an L4B.

SELF AUDITING

The commonest reason for self auditing is a wrong or unfound L&N item.

People can go around and self list or self audit trying to get at the right Why or product or purpose after an error has been made.

REACTION

NOTHING PRODUCES AS MUCH CASE UPSET AS A WRONG LIST ITEM OR A WRONG LIST.

Even, rarely, a DIANETIC LIST can produce wrong list reactions. Ask the pc for his somatics and he blows up or goes into apathy. Or blows. Or attacks the auditor.

ALL of the more violent or bad reactions on the part of the pc come from out lists.

Nothing else produces such a sharp deterioration in a case or even illness.

OUT LISTS

Therefore when one gets a sharp change in a case (like lowered tone, violence, blows, “determination to go on in spite of the supervisor”, long notes from pcs, self C/Sing, etc, etc, the C/S SUSPECTS AN OUT LIST.

This outness can occur in regular sessions even when the item was said to BD F/N.

It can occur in “Coffee shop” (out of session auditing of someone), or by Est Os or poorly trained or untrained staff members or even in life.

PTS

When such actions as finding items by non-auditors are done on PTS people the situation can be bad, so one also suspects the person to be PTS to someone or something.

“PTS” does not communicate well in an assessment question so one says, “Someone or something is hostile to you” and “You are connected to someone or something that doesn’t agree with Dianetics or Scientology.”

REPAIRS

The main things to know when doing such repairs are (a) that such situations as wrong lists or upset people can occur in an org where untrained people are also using meters and (b) THAT IT IS UP TO THE C/S TO SUSPECT DETECT AND GET THEM HANDLED IN REGULAR SESSION.

Do not ignore the possible bad influence.

As the good outweighs the bad in such cases, it is not a correct answer to forbid such actions.

It is a correct answer to require all such actions and worksheets become part of the folder.

One can also persuade the D of T or Qual to gen in the people doing such actions. And do not ignore the effect such actions can have on cases and do not neglect to include them in C/Ses before going on with the regular program.

They can all be repaired.

LRH:nt.rd 	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1972 	Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 30 SEPTEMBER 1968

Remimeo L&N Chksht 
Class VIII
(Reissued 8 May 1972 with
extended distribution)

LISTS

When doing a correction of lists in a folder to get the correct item and clean the folder up, these rules apply—

1. 	Get one F/N per type of list. Example: 3 S & Ds type U are in the folder—you get the item on the first S & D and an F/N—leave the other two.

2. 	You can get F/Ns on S & D types WSU, Rem Bs old, new and environment. But only on each type.

3. 	To go for any more on one type is dangerous and should not be done.

This whole procedure should be done only if ordered by the C/S.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD
                                        					Founder

LRH:jp.nt.rd 
Copyright © 1968, 1972 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 15 DECEMBER 1968RA
(Amends HCO Bulletin of 9 January 1968 List L4A)
Remimeo	(ITEM 6 CORRECTED 12 FEBRUARY 1969)
(Amended 8 August 1970)
(Amended 18 March 1971)
(Revised 2 June 72)
(Re-Revised 11 April 1977)
(Revisions in this type style)

L4BRA

FOR ASSESSMENT OF ALL LISTING ERRORS

ASSESS THE WHOLE LIST (METHOD 5) THEN TAKE biggest reads or BDs and handle. Then clean up the list.

PC’S NAME_____________________________________DATE________________

AUDITOR__________________________________

0.	WAS IT THE FIRST ITEM ON THE LIST?
	(Indicate and give pc his item.)

1. 	DID YOU FAIL TO ANSWER THE LISTING QUESTION? 
	(If it reads, find out what question, clear the question noting whether it reads, if so, list it, find the item and give it to the pc.)

2. 	WAS THE LIST UNNECESSARY? 
	(If it reads, indicate BPC and indicate that it was an unnecessary action.)

2A. 	DID THE QUESTION HAVE NO CHARGE ON IT? 
	( Indicate. )

2B. 	WERE YOU ASHAMED TO CAUSE AN UPSET? 
	(L1C after list corrected.)

2C. 	WERE YOU AMAZED TO REACT THAT WAY? 
	(Same as 2B.)

2D. 	THE QUESTION HAD ALREADY BEEN LISTED BEFORE. 
	(Indicate, rehab.)

2E. 	YOU HAD NO INTEREST IN THE QUESTION? 
	(Indicate that the auditor missed that it didn’t read.)

3. 	WAS THE ACTION DONE UNDER PROTEST? 
	(If it reads, handle by itsa earlier similar itsa.)

4. 	IS A LIST INCOMPLETE? 
	(If reads, find out what list and complete it, give the pc his item.)

5. 	HAS A LIST BEEN LISTED TOO LONG? 
	(If so, find what list and get the item from it by nulling with Suppress, the nulling question being: “On has anything been suppressed?” for each item on the overlong list. Give the pc his item.)

6.	HAS THE WRONG ITEM BEEN TAKEN OFF A LIST?
	(If this reads, put in Suppress and Invalidated on the list and null as in 5 above and find the right item and give to the pc.)

7. 	HAS A RIGHT ITEM BEEN DENIED YOU? 
	(If this reads, find out what it was and clean it up with Suppress and Invalidate and give it to the pc.)

8. 	HAS AN ITEM BEEN PUSHED OFF ON YOU YOU DIDN’T WANT? 
	(If so, find it and get in Suppress and Invalidate on it and tell pc it wasn’t his item and continue the original action to find the correct item.)

9. 	HAD AN ITEM NOT BEEN GIVEN YOU? 
	(if reads, handle as in 7.)

10. 	HAVE YOU INVALIDATED A CORRECT ITEM FOUND? 
	(If so, rehab the item and find out why the pc invalidated it or if somebody else did it, clean it up and give it to pc again.)

11. 	HAVE YOU THOUGHT OF ITEMS THAT YOU DID NOT PUT ON THE LIST? 
	(If so, add them to the correct list. Renull the whole list and give the pc the item.)

12. 	HAVE YOU BEEN LISTING TO YOURSELF OUT OF SESSION? 	
	(If so, find out what question and try to write a list from recall and get an item and give it to the pc.)

13. 	HAVE YOU BEEN GIVEN SOMEBODY ELSE’S ITEM? 
	(If so, indicate to the pc this was not his item. Don’t try to find whose it was.)

14. 	HAS YOUR ITEM BEEN GIVEN TO SOMEONE ELSE? 
	(If so, find if possible what item it was and give it to the pc. Don’t try to identify the “somebody else.”)

14A. WERE EARLIER LISTING ERRORS RESTIMULATED? 
	(Indicate and correct earlier lists then check the current.)

14B. HAD THIS LIST ALREADY BEEN HANDLED? 
	(Indicate.)

15.	HAS A RELEASE POINT BEEN BYPASSED ON LISTING? 
	(If so, indicate the overrun to the pc, rehab back.)

16. 	HAS A RELEASE POINT BEEN BYPASSED ON THE QUESTION ONLY? 
	(If so, indicate the overrun to the pc and rehab back.)

17.	HAVE YOU GONE EXTERIOR WHILE LISTING? 
	(If so, rehab. If Ext Rundown not given, note for C/S.)

18. 	HAS IT BEEN AN OVERT TO PUT AN ITEM ON A LIST? 
	(If so, find out what item and why.)

19. 	HAVE YOU WITHHELD AN ITEM FROM A LIST? 
	(If so, get it and add it to the list if that list available. If not put item in the report.)
20. 	HAS A WITHHOLD BEEN MISSED? 
	(If so, get it, if discreditable ask “Who nearly found out?”)

21. 	HAS AN ITEM BEEN BYPASSED? 
	(Locate which one.)

22. 	WAS A LISTING QUESTION MEANINGLESS? 
	(If so, find out which one and indicate to the pc.)

23. 	HAS AN ITEM BEEN ABANDONED? 
	(If so, locate it and get it back for the pc and give it to him.)

24. 	HAS AN ITEM BEEN PROTESTED? 
	(If so, locate it and get the Protest button in on it.)

25. 	HAS AN ITEM BEEN ASSERTED? 
	(If so, locate it and get in the Assert button on it.)

26. 	HAS AN ITEM BEEN SUGGESTED TO YOU BY ANOTHER? 
	(If so, get it named and the Protest and Refusal off.)

27. 	HAS AN ITEM BEEN VOLUNTEERED BY YOU AND NOT ACCEPTED? 
	(If so, get off the charge and give it to the pc, or if he then changes his mind on it, go on with the listing operation.)

28. 	HAS THE ITEM ALREADY BEEN GIVEN? 
	(If so, get it back and give it again.)

29. 	HAS AN ITEM BEEN FOUND PREVIOUSLY? 
	(If so, find what it was again and give it to the pc once more.)

30. 	HAS AN ITEM NOT BEEN UNDERSTOOD? 
	(If so, work it over with buttons until pc understands it or accepts or rejects it and go on with listing.)

30A. WAS THE LISTING QUESTION NOT UNDERSTOOD? 
	(Get defined and check for read. It may be unreading. If so, indicate that an uncharged question was listed because it read on a misunderstood.)

30B. WAS A WORD IN THE QUESTION NOT UNDERSTOOD? 
	(Same as 30A.)

31. 	WAS AN ITEM DIFFERENT WHEN SAID BY THE AUDITOR? 
	(If so, find out what the item was and give it to the pc correctly.)

31A. DID THE AUDITOR SUGGEST ITEMS TO YOU THAT WERE NOT YOURS? 
	(Indicate as illegal to do so. Correct the list removing these.)

32. 	WAS NULLING CARRIED ON PAST THE FOUND ITEM? 
	(If so, go back to it and get in Suppress and Protest.)

33. 	HAS AN ITEM BEEN FORCED ON YOU? 
	(If so, get off the Reject and Suppress and get the listing action completed to the right item if possible.)

34. 	HAS AN ITEM BEEN EVALUATED? 
	(If so, get off the Disagreement and Protest.)

35. 	HAD EARLIER LISTING BEEN RESTIMULATED? 
	(If so, locate when and indicate the bypassed charge. Find and correct the earlier out list.)

36. 	HAS AN EARLIER WRONG ITEM BEEN RESTIMULATED? 
	(If so, find when and indicate the bypassed charge. Find and correct the earlier out list.)

37. 	HAS AN EARLIER ARC BREAK BEEN RESTIMULATED? 
	(If so, locate and indicate the fact by itsa earlier similar itsa.)

38. 	DO YOU HAVE AN ARC BREAK BECAUSE OF BEING MADE TO DO THIS? 
	(If so, indicate it to the pc. Handle the ARC break. Correct the list if it’s a list ARC break.)

39. 	HAS THE LIST CORRECTION BEEN OVERRUN? 
	(If so, rehab.)

39A. WAS THE LIST DONE WHILE YOU ALREADY HAD AN ARC BRK, PTP OR W/H?

39B. COULDN’T YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT WAS BEING DONE?

39C. COULDN’T YOU UNDERSTAND THE AUDITOR?

39D. DIDN’T THE AUDITOR ACKNOWLEDGE YOU?

40. 	IS THERE SOME OTHER KIND OF BYPASSED CHARGE? 
	(If so, find what and indicate it to pc.)

41. 	WAS THERE NOTHING WRONG IN THE FIRST PLACE? 
	(If so, indicate it to pc.)

42. 	HAS THE UPSET BEEN HANDLED? 
	(If so, indicate it to the pc.)

43. 	HAS A LIST PROCESS BEEN OVERRUN? 
	(If so, find which one and rehab.)

	L. RON HUBBARD
	Founder

	Assisted by CS-4/5

LRH:JE:ldm.rw.dz..rr.nt.dr 
Copyright © 1968, 1972, 1976, 1977 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 31 DECEMBER 1978
Issue II
Remimeo
Class IV Grad	
Class VI
C/Ses
Class IV Grad	OUTLINE OF PTS HANDLING
Auditors
Ethics Officers

PTS situations can arise at any time during a person’s Scientology auditing or training program and must be handled speedily and well to get the person back on his course of auditing or training. Many preclears new to Scientology require PTS handling as one of their first actions.

Auditing or training must not be continued over an unhandled PTS sit as processing or study under the duress of suppression will not produce results.

You do not go on hoping or ignore it or call it something else or do any other action except handle. Handling PTSness is too easy to allow for any justification or excuse for not doing so, and the steps given below lay out the many handlings which can be used to bring about a full resolution of all PTSness in all pcs.

EDUCATION

A person who is PTS is often the last person to suspect it. He may have become temporarily or momentarily so. And he may have become so very slightly. Or he may be even PTS and have been so for a long time. But he is nevertheless PTS and we must educate him into the subject.

PTS C/S-1

The PTS C/S-1, given in HCOB 31 Dec 78 III EDUCATING THE POTENTIAL TROUBLE SOURCE, THE FIRST STEP TOWARD HANDLING: PTS C/S-1 must be done before any other PTS handling is begun.

This action sets a person up to understand his PTS sit and the mechanics of it. A thorough PTS C/S-1 is the basis of all successful PTS handling.

PTS INTERVIEW

A metered PTS interview per HCOB 24 Apr 72 1, C/S Series 79, PTS INTERVIEWS or a “10 August handling” per HCOB 10 Aug 73 PTS HANDLING done by an auditor in session or an MAA, D of P or SSO will, in most cases, assist the person to spot the antagonistic or SP element. Once spotted, the potential trouble source can be assisted in working out a handling for that terminal, or more rarely, in deciding to disconnect from that person.

(If all  difficulty is encountered on this step, or if the SP cannot easily be found. the preclear or student is probably not PTS Type I and should be turned over to an auditor qualified to handle Type II PTS situations with more advanced PTS tech.)

HANDLING

Once the antagonistic terminal has been located, a handling is done to move the PTS person from effect to slight gentle cause over his situation. This handling will include whatever is needed to accomplish the result, and will, of course, vary depending on the person and his circumstances.

A good roads, good weather approach to the antagonistic terminal is usually what is needed. The handling must be agreed upon by the potential trouble source and the person assisting him and must be tailored to put the person at cause over his particular situation.

Handling may include coaching him along to see how he himself actually precipitated the PTS condition in the first place by not applying or by misapplying Scientology basics to his life and relationship with the now antagonistic terminal, per BPL 5 Apr 72RC PTS TYPE A HANDLING.

(Additional references:

HCOB 10 Aug 73. PTS HANDLING 
HCOB 24 Apr 72 1, C/S Series 79, PTS INTERVIEWS 
HCOB 24 Nov 65 SEARCH AND DISCOVERY 
PROBLEMS OF WORK. Chapter 6, Affinity, Reality and Communication 
BTB 11 Nov 77 Reiss. 10 Dec 77 HANDLING PTS SITUATIONS.)

WHAT IS SCIENTOLOGY?

It quite often happens that the persons antagonistic to the preclear have no real concept of what Scientology is. This can also be true of a very new Scientologist who then misinforms others.

The book WHAT IS SCIENTOLOGY? is a very useful tool. The preclear can send a copy of it to persons antagonistic to him and it will give them hope that the person will respond better to life or if they are antagonistic to Scientology can show them what they’re being antagonistic to.

Recommendations that the PTS person obtain and use this book (or anyone else who wants to inform his friends or get them on the right road, as the book was not written for the purpose of de-PTSing people) should be made by the interviewing officer. The book was specially priced so it would be more generally available despite the high cost of publishing. It is a large and imposing book and contains the true answers to all the questions people might ask and so saves the PTS person or any other person a great deal of explanation time.

It is quite a formidable weapon when used in that fashion besides being a good book that Scientologists should own in its own right.

CAN WE EVER BE FRIENDS?

Extraordinary successes in handling PTS situations with the Can We Ever Be Friends?  cassette and booklet occur when these are used. Parents, friends, relatives of Scientologists, who, due to misunderstoods or misinformation thought they were opposed to Scientology and its aims have discovered, after listening to this cassette, that they are in full agreement with it and now give Scientology their support. This action is vital and must not be omitted.

The results available with this cassette cannot be underestimated. It can be used by itself when communication has really broken down between the two terminals or in conjunction with other PTS handling.
PROGRAM

As a result of interview and the various actions connected with it as given above and in the referenced issues the interviewer must give the person a program to be done by the person. If the person does not do the program or report his actions on it, or the program results in no real change in the situation the interviewing officer must require the person to have auditing on the subject. (Ruds can be flown and/or a PTS RD must be given by a qualified auditor in the HGC.)

Clears and OTs can have ruds flown and can do all the PTS RD except engram handling.

This is usually followed by a Suppressed Person RD.

RUDIMENTS

Flying ruds and overts Triple or Quad Flow on the antagonistic terminal is often done to “get ruds in” and enable the pc to better confront the PTS situation he is faced with. This would of course, be done only in session by a qualified auditor when so ordered by the Case Supervisor.

THE PTS RUNDOWN

The PTS Rundown is done when preclears who have had standard, successful PTS handlings roller-coaster at a later date, become ill, slump after making gains, or continue to find additional terminals they are PTS to.

The PTS Rundown handles a more expanded sector of a pc’s PTSness and is run to the end phenomena of a pc who is getting and keeping case gains and never again roller-coasters.

Note: Clears, OTs and Dianetic Clears are not run on the Dianetic section of the PTS Rundown.

References:

HCOB 9 Dec 71 RC Rev. 8 Dec 78 PTS RUNDOWN 
HCOB 20 Jan 72R Rev. 8 Dec 78 PTS RUNDOWN ADDITION 
HCOB 17 Apr 72, C/S Series 76, C/SING A PTS RUNDOWN 
HCOB 3 Jun 72RA Rev. 8 Dec 78 PTS RUNDOWN, FINAL STEP

SUPPRESSED PERSON RUNDOWN

This rundown is beautifully simple and magically effective. It can be done with great success on all PTS persons of any case level, from those just beginning their first auditing to Clears, OTs and Dianetic Clears.

The end phenomena of this handling is a miraculous restoration of communication between the estranged terminals originated by the formerly antagonistic person. (Reference: HCOB 29 Dec 78 THE SUPPRESSED PERSON RUNDOWN)

REST, QUIET AND A SAFE ENVIRONMENT

Rest. quiet and a safe environment must be provided for a person who has become PTS Type Three.

“In this case, the Type Two’s apparent SP is spread all over the world and is often more than all the people there are—for the person sometimes has ghosts about him or demons and they are just more apparent SPs but imaginary as beings as well.”

“. . . Removed from apparent SPs, kept in a quiet surroundings, not pestered or threatened or put in fear, the person comes up to Type Two and a Search and Discovery should end the matter.”

(HCOB 24 Nov 65 SEARCH AND DISCOVERY)

These are powerful and precision tools. With them we can handle our PTS students, preclears and staffs and get resounding one-for-one successes.

I am counting on you to do this.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH:clh
Copyright © 1978
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 31 DECEMBER 1978
Issue III
Word Clearers
HCO
Tech/Qual
C/Ses
PTS/SP Detection.
Routing and
Handling Course
Ethics Officers
Class IV Grad

EDUCATING THE POTENTIAL TROUBLE SOURCE,
THE FIRST STEP TOWARD HANDLING:
PTS C/S-1

References:

BPL 5 Apr 72RC I	PTS TYPE A HANDLING
Rev. 29.12.78
BTB 11 Nov 77	HANDLING PTS SITUATIONS
HCOB 24 Apr 72 I	C/S Series 79
	EXDN Series 5
	PTS INTERVIEWS
HCOB 10 Aug 73	PTS HANDLING
HCOB 27 Sep 6h	THE ANTI-SOCIAL PERSONALITY
	THE ANTI-SCIENTOLOGIST
HCOB 28 Nov 7()	C/S Series 22
	PSYCHOSIS
HCOB 24 Nov 65	SEARCH AND DISCOVERY
HCOB 12 Mar 6X	MISTAKES, ANATOMY OF
HCOB 9 Nov h7	REVIEW AUDITORS, BOOK OF CASE REMEDIES—
	REVISION OF REMEDY A. REMEDY B
AND S AND Ds
HCOB 5 Feb 66 III	S AND D WARNING
HCOB 9 Dec 71 RC	PTS RUNDOWN. AUDITED
Rev. 8.12.78
HCOB 20 Jan 72R	PTS RUNDOWN ADDITION
Rev. 8.12.78
HCOB 3 Jun 72RA	PTS RUNDOWN. FINAL STEP
Rev. 8.12.78
HCOB 29 Dec 78	THE SUPPRESSED PERSON RUNDOWN
HCOB 30 Dec 78	SUPPRESSED PERSON RUNDOWN—PROBLEMS
	PROCESSES
HCOB 31 Dec 78 11	OUTLINE OF PTS HANDLING

When you find you have a potential trouble source on your hands the very first thing you must do is educate him on the fundamentals of PTS/SP tech.

Do not begin any other PTS handling on any PTS person until he has completed the basic education steps of the PTS C/S-1 given in this HCOB.

In the absence of education into the basics of PTS tech you will have PTS students and pcs asserting they’re not PTS, you will have upsets. protest, recurrences of “once handled” PTSness. PTSes will not cognite, will not take action to handle the antagonistic terminal, will not recover. Failure to educate simply doesn’t work. So a very thorough job must be done at this point to guarantee the success of any PTS handlings which follow.

Now people and circumstances and PTS sits vary, and you may wish to carry the education steps of the PTS person beyond what is given here before you begin any other handling on him. I will leave that to your educated judgment. However, the steps of the PTS C/S-1 given in this HCOB must be done on all PTS students and pcs before any sort of PTS Interview or 10 August handling or any PTS auditing is undertaken.

The person should, of course, study the complete PTS/SP Detection, Routing and Handling Course so that he understands the full mechanics that had been upsetting his life, but the PTS C/S-1 will give sufficient data and understanding so that he or she can begin handling the PTS scene.

PTS C/S-1

The following PTS C/S-1 is not a long action and can and should be accomplished speedily. Its purpose is to give to any PTS student or pc the necessary data and RFactor on the basics of PTS/SP tech so that he understands and is able and willing to successfully handle his PTS situation. It can be done by an auditor, in session, or in the course room under the supervision of the Word Clearer and Course Supervisor.

Note: Some pcs and students who have been trained or who have in the past received PTS handling may protest that they know the terms and issues. If this happens acknowledge with excellent TRs and without invalidation or evaluation and tell them that this action is intended to make PTS handling effective for all and is a required step of the handling. If the auditor or Word Clearer uses excellent TRs and a good R-Factor, no ARC breaks will occur and the person will have tremendous wins.

The auditor or Word Clearer should be fully familiar with this issue as well as all issues in the PTS/SP Course pack. He will need to take a very thorough look at what has to be covered with the pc in this C/S-1 and know his materials very well and have them ready for reference and clearing any misunderstoods or questions the pc may have.

The following will be needed:

Technical Dictionary

Admin Dictionary

A good English Dictionary

A good dictionary in the pc or student’s native language, and for a foreign language case a dual dictionary (English-to-foreign language and foreign language itself).

PTS and SP Definitions Sheet—Attachment No. I of this issue

Demo kit

A. 	Have the pc define each term, using the reference. (Note: you don’t ask: “Do you know what this word means?” You ask: “What is the definition of ?”

	When the pc has told you the definition, have him give you a sentence or two using the term correctly. Where it applies, have him give you examples, using his experiences or those of others. Have him demo with a demo kit. Cover by exact definition all terms used and take each term defined to an F/N.

B. 	Check for any questions (or misunderstoods) as you go along and ensure any such get handled so the pc or student winds up with a clear understanding of the word.

	Don’t settle for glibness that does not show understanding, but on the other hand, don’t overrun or put duress on the pc or student, either.

	Ensure each word cleared is taken to F/N.

PTS C/S- 1 PROCEDURE

1. 	Give the R-Factor that you are going to clear the basic words and concepts concerning PTSness.

2. 	Clear the word AFFINITY. Have the pc or student demo its meaning.

3. 	Clear the word REALITY. Have the pc or student give you sentences and examples showing his understanding.

4. 	Clear the word COMMUNICATION. Have the pc or student demo its meaning.

5. 	Clear ARC BREAK. Have the pc or student demo what an ARC break is.

6. 	Clear PROBLEM. Have the pc or student demo a problem.

7. 	Clear WITHHOLD. Have the pc or student give you an example of a withhold.

8. 	Clear MISSED WITHHOLD. Have the pc or student demo a missed withhold.

9. 	Clear POSTULATE. Ask the pc or student if he’s ever postulated anything. Have him tell you about it.

10. 	Clear COUNTER (the prefix).

11. 	Have the pc or student demo several examples of a postulate and a counter-postu late.

12. 	Clear HOSTILE.  ANTAGONISM.

13. 	Clear SUPPRESS. Have the pc Or student demo several different examples of how someone or something could be suppressed.

14. 	Clear SUPPRESSION. Have the pc or student give you examples of suppression from movies he’s seen or books he’s read or suppression he’s seen or experienced.

15. 	Clear SUPPRESSIVE PERSON. Have the pc or student demo the definitions.

16. 	Clear SUPPRESSIVE GROUPS.

17. 	Clear ROLLER-COASTER. Have the pc or student demo roller-coaster. Ask him if he’s ever been around anyone who roller-coastered. Let him tell you about it briefly if he wishes.

18. 	Clear POTENTIAL TROUBLE SOURCE (PTS). Have the pc or student demo this well.

	(If this step is being done by a Word Clearer in the course room, end off at this point and send the pc or student to the Examiner. Then, get him started on the Study Section. If being done in session, the auditor may continue with the Study Section. )

STUDY SECTION
19. 	The following issues are to be read by the PTS student or pc, word cleared Method 4 and starrated. This may be done in a course room, under the supervision of the Course Supervisor or in session with an auditor.

	HCOB 27 Sep 66 	THE ANTI-SOCIAL PERSONALITY
		THE ANTI-SCIENTOLOGIST
HCOB 28 Nov 70	C/S Series 22
	PSYCHOSIS
HCOB 24 Nov 65	SEARCH AND DISCOVERY
HCOB 12 Mar 68	MISTAKES, ANATOMY OF
BPL 5 Apr 72RC I	PTS TYPE A HANDLING
Rev. 29.12.78
BTB 11 Nov 77	HANDLING PTS SITUATIONS
HCOB 24 Apr 72 I	C/S Series 79
	EXDN Series 5
	PTS INTERVIEWS
HCOB 10 Aug 73	PTS HANDLING

20. 	End off and send the pc or student to the Examiner. Route the pc’s folder with all worksheets to the C/S who will examine them for thoroughness and completeness and then order the person’s next step.
___________

Educating a PTS person is the key to putting him at cause over the PTS sit. Do this PTS C/S-1 thoroughly and well. It is not to be considered a substitute for the full PTS/SP Detection, Routing and Handling Course, but will set up the PTS student or pc for a highly successful PTS handling. These you get him signed up for the course.

PTS tech is highly effective and powerful. Get the most out of it by applying it properly, with EDUCATION as the first step.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:jk
Copyright © 1978
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HCOB 31.12.78 III
ATTACHMENT

PTS C/S-1
DEFINITIONS SHEET

AFFINITY

Degree of liking or affection or lack of it. Affinity is a tolerance of distance. A great affinity would be a tolerance of or liking of close proximity. A lack of affinity would be an intolerance of or dislike of close proximity. Affinity is one of the components of understanding; the other components being reality and communication.
(Diabetics Today,  Glossary, page 1013)

REALITY

The degree of agreement reached by two ends of a communication line. In essence, it is the degree of duplication achieved between cause and effect. That which is real is real simply because it is agreed upon, and for no other reason.
(Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary,  page 338)

COMMUNICATION

“The interchange of ideas or objects between two people or terminals. More precisely the definition of communication is the consideration and action of impelling an impulse or particle from source point across a distance to receipt point, with the intention of bringing into being at the receipt point a duplication and understanding of that which emanated from the source point.” “The formula of communication is: Cause, Distance, Effect, with Intention, Attention and Duplication with Understanding.” “Communication by definition does not need to be two-way. Communication is one of the component parts of understanding.”
Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary page 81)
(HCOB 5 Apr 73 Reiss. 19 Sep 74 AXIOM 28 AMENDED) 
(Dianetics Today. Glossary, page 1020)

ARC BREAK

A sudden drop or cutting of one’s affinity, reality, or communication with someone or something. Upsets with people or things come about because of a lessening or sundering of affinity, reality, or communication or understanding. It’s called an ARC break instead of an upset, because, if one discovers which of the three points of understanding have been cut, one can bring about a rapid recovery in the person’s state of mind. It is pronounced by its letters A-R-C break.
(Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary  page 21)

PROBLEM

Anything which has opposing sides of equal force; especially postulate-counterpostulate, intention-counter-intention or idea-counter-idea; and intention-counterintention that worries the preclear
(Dianetics Today Glossary, page 1034)

OVERT

1. 	... An aggressive or destructive act by the individual against one or more of the eight dynamics (self, family, group, mankind, animals or plants, mest, life or the infinite) .
	(Dianetics Today. Glossary, page 1032)

2. 	That thing which you do which you aren’t willing to have happen to you.
	(Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary page 288)

WITHHOLD

An undisclosed harmful (contra-survival) act.
(Dianetics Today. Glossary, page 1043)

MISSED WITHHOLD

An undisclosed contra-survival act which has been restimulated by another but not disclosed. This is a withhold which another person nearly found out about, leaving the person with the withhold in a state of wondering whether his hidden deed is known or not.
(Dianetics Today. Glossary, page 1030)

POSTULATE

1. 	To conclude, decide or resolve a problem or to set a pattern for the future or to nullify a pattern of the past.
	(Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary  page 304)

2. 	That self-determined thought which starts, stops or changes past, present or future efforts.
	(Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary  page 304)

3. 	In Scientology the word postulate means to cause a thinkingness or consideration. It is a specially applied word and is defined as causative thinkingness.
	(Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary page 304)

COUNTER

1. 	Opposition, as in direction or purpose; for example countermarch, counteract. 
	(The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language page 303)

HOSTILE

1. 	Of or pertaining to an enemy. 
	(The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. page 637)

2. 	Feeling or showing enmity; antagonistic. 
	(The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. page 637)

ANTAGONISM

1. 	Mutual resistance; opposition; hostility. 
	(The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. page 55)

2. 	The condition of being an opposing principle, force or factor. 
	(The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language page 55)

SUPPRESS

1. 	To squash, to sit on, to make smaller, to refuse to let reach, to make uncertain about his reaching, to render or lessen in any way possible by any means possible. to the harm of the individual and for the fancied protection of a suppressor.
	(Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary  page 414)

SUPPRESSION

1. 	Suppression is “a harmful intention or action against which one cannot fight back.” Thus when one can do anything about it, it is less suppressive.
	(Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary page 414)

SUPPRESSIVE PERSON

1. 	A person with certain behavior characteristics and who suppresses other people in his vicinity and those other people when he suppresses them become PTS or potential trouble sources.
	(Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary  page 415)

2. 	A person who has had a counter-postulate to the pc you are handling. 
	(Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary  page 415)

3. 	Is one that actively seeks to suppress or damage Scientology or a Scientologist by suppressive acts.
	(Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary  page 415)

SUPPRESSIVE GROUPS

1. 	Are defined as those which seek to destroy Scientology or which specialize in injuring or killing persons or damaging their cases or which advocate suppression of mankind.
	(Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary  page 414)

ROLLER-COASTER

1. 	A case that betters and worsens. A roller-coaster is always connected to a suppressive person and will not get steady gains until the suppressive is found on the case or the basic suppressive person earlier. Because the case doesn’t get well he or she is a potential trouble source to us, to others and to himself. 

	(Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary, page 358)

2. 	Gets better, gets worse, gets better, gets worse. 
	(Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary,  page 358)

POTENTIAL TROUBLE SOURCE

1. 	Somebody who is connected with an SP who is invalidating him, his beingness, his processing, his life.
	(Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary  page 305)

2. 	It means someone connected to a person or a group opposed to Scientology. It is a technical thing. It results in illness and roller-coaster and is the cause of illness and roller-coaster.
	(Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary  page 305)

3. 	The PTS guy is fairly obvious. He’s here, he’s way up today and he’s way down tomorrow and he gets a beautiful session and then he gets terribly ill. That’s the history of his life.
	(Modern Management Technology Defined  page 400)

4. 	The mechanism of PTS is environmental menace that keeps something continually keyed-in. This can be a constant recurring somatic or continual, recurring pressure or a mass. The menace in the environment is not imaginary in such extreme cases. The action can be taken to key it out. But if the environmental menace is actual and persists it will just key-in again. This gives recurring pressure unrelieved by usual processing.
	(Modern Management Technology Defined  page 400)
SEARCH AND DISCOVERY

1. 	Search and discovery of suppression is called an “S and D.” It locates the suppressive on the case.
	(HCOB 9 Nov 67, REVIEW AUDITORS, BOOK OF CASE REMEDIES. REVISION OF REMEDY A, REMEDY B AND S AND Ds)

“Remember that the real suppressive person (SP) was the one that wove a dangerous environment around the pc. To find that person is to open up the pc’s present time perception or space. It’s like pulling a wrapping of wool off the pc.

“The SP persuaded or caused the pc to believe the environment was dangerous and that it was always dangerous and so made the pc pull in and occupy less space and reach less.

“When the SP is really located and indicated the pc feels this impulse not to reach diminish and so his space opens up.

“The difference between a safe environment and a dangerous environment is only that a person is willing to reach and expand in a safe environment and reaches less and contracts in a dangerous environment.

“An SP wants the other person to reach less. Sometimes this is done by forcing the person to reach into danger and get hurt so that the person will thereafter reach less.

“The SP wants smaller, less powerful beings. The SP thinks that if another became powerful that one would attack the SP.

“The SP is totally insecure and is battling constantly in covert ways to make others less powerful and less able.”

(HCOB 5 Feb 66 S AND D WARNING)

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICER
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 7 MAY 1969
(Revises HCO Policy Letter of 17 Oct. 1964)
Remimeo
Franchise
Sthil Students	POLICIES ON “SOURCES OF TROUBLE”
Sthil Staff
Dianetic Course

Policies similar to those regarding physical illness and insanity exist for types of persons who have caused us considerable trouble.

These persons can be grouped under “sources of trouble”. They include:

(a) Persons intimately connected with persons (such as marital or familial-ties) of known antagonism to mental or spiritual treatment or Scientology. In practice such persons, even when they approach Scientology in a friendly fashion, have such pressure continually brought to bear upon them by persons with undue influence over them that they make very poor gains in processing and their interest is solely devoted to proving the antagonistic element wrong.

They, by experience, produce a great deal of trouble in the long run as their own condition does not improve adequately under such stresses to effectively combat the antagonism. Their present time problem cannot be reached as it is continuous, and so long as it remains so, they should not be accepted for auditing by any organization or auditor.

(b) Criminals with proven criminal records otten continue to commit so many undetected harmful acts between sessions that they do not make adequate case gains and therefore should not be accepted for processing by organizations or auditors.

(c) Persons who have ever threatened to sue or embarrass or attack or who have publicly attacked Scientology or been a party to an attack and all their immediate families should never be accepted for processing by a Central Organization or auditor. They have a history of only serving other ends than case gain and commonly again turn on the organization or auditor. They have already barred themselves out by their own overts against Scientology and are thereafter too difficult to help, since they cannot openly accept help from those they have tried to injure.

(d) Responsible-for-condition cases have been traced back to other causes tar their condition too often to be acceptable. By Responsible-for-condition cases is meant the person who insists a book or some auditor is “wholly responsible for the terrible condition I am in”. Such cases demand unusual favours, free auditing, tremendous effort on the part of auditors. Review of these cases show that they were in the same or worse condition long before auditing, that they are losing a planned campaign to obtain auditing for nothing, that they are not as bad off as they claim, and that their antagonism extends to anyone who seeks to help them, even their own families. Establish the rights of the matter and decide accordingly.

(e) Persons who are not being audited on their own determinism are a liability as they are forced into being processed by some other person and have no personal desire to become better. Quite on the contrary they usually want only to prove the person who wants them audited wrong and so do not get better. Until a personally determined goal to be processed occurs, the person will not benefit.

(f) Persons who “want to be processed to see if Scientology works” as their only reason for being audited have never been known to make gains as they do not participate. News reporters fall into this category. They should not be audited.

(g) Persons who claim that “if you help such and such a case” (at great and l oar expense) because somebody is rich and hlfluelltial or the neigllbours would be electrified should be ignored. Processing is designed for bettering individuals, not progressing by stunts or giving cases undue importance. Process only at convenience and usual arrangements. Make no extraordinary effort at the expense of other persons who do want processing for normal reasons. Not one of these arrangements has ever come off successfully as it has the unworthy goal of notoriety, not betterments

(h) Persons who “have an open mind” but no personal hopes or desires for auditing of knowingness should be ignored, as they really don’t have all open mind at all, but a lack of ability to decide about things and are seldom found to be very responsible and waste anyone’s efforts “to convince them”.

(i) Persons who do not believe anything or anyone can get better. They have a purpose far being audited entirely contrary to the auditor’s and so in this conflict, do not benefit. When such persons are trained they use their training to degrade others. Thus they should not be accepted for training or auditing.

(j) Persons attempting to sit in judgemellt on Scientology in hearings or attempting to investigate Scientology should be given no undue importance. One should not seek to instruct or assist them in any way. This includes judges, boards, newspaper reporters, magazine writers, etc. All efforts to be helpful or instructive have done nothing beneficial as their first idea is a firm “I don’t know” and this usually ends with an equally firm “I don’t know”. If a person can’t see tor himself or judge from the obvious, then he does not have sufficient powers of observation even to sort out actual evidence. In legal matters, only take the obvious effective steps--carry on no crusades in court. In the matter of reporters, etc., it is not worth while to give them ally time contrary to popular belief. They are given their story before they leave their editorial rooms and you only strengthen what they have to say by saying anything. They are no public communication line that says much. Policy is very definite. Ignore.

To summarize troublesome persons, the policy in general is to cut communication as the longer it is extended the more trouble they are. I know of no instance where the types of persons listed above were handled by auditing or instruction. I know of many instances where they were handled by just ignoring them until they change their minds or just turning one’s back.

In applying a policy of cut-communication one must also use judgement as there are exceptions in all things and to fail to handle a person’s momentary upset in life or with us can be quite fatal. So these policies refer to non-Scientology persons in the main or persons who appear on the outer fringes and push toward us. When such a person bears any of the above designations we and the many are better off to ignore them.

Scientology works. You don’t have to prove it to everyone. People don’t deserve to have Scientology as a divine right, you know. They have to earn it. This has been true in every philosophy that sought to better man.

All the above “Sources of Trouble” are also forbidden training and when a person being trained or audited is detected to belong under the above headings (a) to (j) he or she should be advised to terminate and accept refund which must be paid at once and the full explanation should be given them at that time. Thus the few may not, in their own turmoil, impede service to and the advance of the many. And the less enturbulence you put on your lines, the better and the more people you will eventually help.

LRH:cs.ei.rd 	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1969 	Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 10 AUGUST 1973
Remimeo	
HCO Secs
E/Os
MAAs
Tech Secs	PTS HANDLING
Ds of P
PTS Pack	(PTS = Potential Trouble Source)

There are two stable data which anyone has to have, understand and KNOW ARE TRUE in order to obtain results in handling the person connected to suppressives.

These data are:

1. 	That all illness in greater or lesser degree and all foul-ups stem directly and only from a PTS condition.

2. 	That getting rid of the condition requires three basic actions: A. Discover. B. Handle or disconnect.

Persons called upon to handle PTS people can do so very easily, far more easily than they believe. Their basic stumbling block is thinking that there are exceptions or that there is other tech or that the two above data have modifiers or are not sweeping. The moment a person who is trying to handle PTSs gets persuaded there are other conditions or reasons or tech, he is at once lost and will lose the game and not obtain results. And this is very too bad because it is not difficult and the results are there to be obtained.

To turn someone who may be PTS over to an auditor just to have him mechanically audited may not be enough. In the first place this person may not have a clue what is meant by PTS and may be missing all manner of technical data on life and may be so overwhelmed by a suppressive person or group that he is quite incoherent. Thus just mechanically doing a process may miss the whole show as it misses the person’s understanding of why it is being done.

A PTS person is rarely psychotic. But all psychotics are PTS if only to themselves. A PTS person may be in a state of deficiency or pathology which prevents a ready recovery, but at the same time he will not fully recover unless the PTS condition is also handled. For he became prone to deficiency or pathological illness because he was PTS. And unless the condition is relieved, no matter what medication or nutrition he may be given, he might not recover and certainly will not recover permanently. This seems to indicate that there are “other illnesses or reasons for illness besides being PTS”. To be sure there are deficiencies and illnesses just as there are accidents and injuries. But strangely enough the person himself precipitates them because being PTS predisposes him to them. In a more garbled way, the medicos and nutritionists are always talking about “stress” causing illness. Lacking full tech they yet have an inkling that this is so because they see it is somehow true. They cannot handle it. Yet they recognize it, and they state that it is a senior situation to various illnesses and accidents. Well, we have the tech of this in more ways than one.

What is this thing called “stress”? It is more than the medico defines it—he usually says it comes from operational or physical shock and in this he has too limited a view.

A person under stress is actually under a suppression on one or more dynamics.

If that suppression is located and the person handles or disconnects, the condition diminishes. If he also has all the engrams and ARC Breaks, problems, overts and withholds audited out triple flow and if ALL such areas of suppression are thus handled, the person would recover from anything caused by “stress”.

Usually the person has insufficient understanding of life or any dynamic to grasp his own situation. He is confused. He believes all his illnesses are true because they occur in such heavy books!

At some time he was predisposed to illness or accidents. When a serious suppression then occurred he suffered a precipitation or occurrence of the accident or illness, and then with repeated similar suppressions on the same chain, the illness or tendency to accidents became prolonged or chronic.

To say then that a person is PTS to his current environment would be very limited as a diagnosis. If he continues to do or be something to which the suppressive person or group objected he may become or continue to be ill or have accidents.

Actually the problem of PTS is not very complicated. Once you have grasped the two data first given, the rest of it becomes simply an analysis of how they apply to this particular person. A PTS person can be markedly helped in three ways: (a) gaining an understanding of the tech of the condition (b) discovering to what or to whom he is PTS (c) handling or disconnecting.

Someone with the wish or duty to find and handle PTSs has an additional prior step: He must know how to recognize a PTS and how to handle them when recognized. Thus it is rather a waste of time to engage in this hunt unless one has been checked out on all the material on suppressives and PTSs and grasps it without misunderstoods. In other words the first step of the person is to get a grasp of the subject and its tech. This is not difficult to do; it may be a bit more difficult to learn to run an E-Meter and considerably more difficult to learn how to list for items, but there again this is possible and is much easier than trying to grope around guessing.

With this step done, a person has no real trouble recognizing PTS people and can have success in handling them which is very gratifying and rewarding. Let us consider the easiest level of approach:

i) 	Give the person the simpler HCO Bs on the subject and let him study them so that he knows the elements like “PTS” and “Suppressive”. He may just cognite right there and be much better. It has happened.

ii) 	Have him discuss the illness or accident or condition, without much prodding or probing, that he thinks now may be the result of suppression. He will usually tell you it is right here and now or was a short time ago and will be all set to explain it (without any relief) as stemming from his current environment or a recent one. If you let it go at that he would simply be a bit unhappy and not get well as he is discussing usually a late lock that has a lot of earlier material below it.

iii) 	Ask when he recalls first having that illness or having such accidents. He will at once begin to roll this back and realize that it has happened before. You don’t have to be auditing him as he is all too willing to talk about this in a most informal manner. He will get back to some early this-lifetime point usually.

iv) 	Now ask him who  it was. He will usually tell you promptly. And, as you are not really auditing him and he isn’t going backtrack and you are not trying to do more than key him out, you don’t probe any further.

v) 	You will usually find that he has named a person to whom he is still connected! So you ask him whether he wants to handle or disconnect. Now as the sparks will really fly in his life if he dramatically disconnects and if he can’t see how he can, you persuade him to begin to handle on a gradient scale. This may consist of imposing some slight discipline on him such as requiring him to actually answer his mail or write the person a pleasant good roads good weather note or to realistically look at how he estranged them. In short what is required in the handling is a low gradient. All you are trying to do is MOVE THE PTS PERSON FROM EFFECT OVER TO SLIGHT GENTLE CAUSE.

vi) 	Check with the person again, if he is handling, and coach him along, always at a gentle good roads and good weather level and no H E and R (Human Emotion and Reaction) if you please.

That is a simple handling. You can get complexities such as a person being PTS to an unknown person in his immediate vicinity that he may have to find before he can handle or disconnect. You can find people who can’t remember more than a few years back. You can find anything you can find in a case. But simple handling ends when it looks pretty complex. And that’s when you call in the auditor.

But this simple handling will get you quite a few stars in your crown. You will be amazed to find that while some of them don’t instantly recover, medication, vitamins, minerals will now work when before they wouldn’t. You may also get some instant recovers but realize that if they don’t you have not failed.

The auditor can do “3 S&Ds” after this with much more effect as he isn’t working with a completely uninformed person.

“3 S&Ds” only fail because of wrong items or because the auditor did not then put in triple rudiments on the items and then audit them out as engrams triple flow.

A being is rather complex. He may have a lot of sources of suppression. And it may take a lot of very light auditing to get him up to where he can do work on suppressives since these were, after all, the source of his overwhelm. And what he did to THEM might be more important than what they did to HIM but unless you unburden HIM he may not get around to realizing that.

You can run into a person who can only be handled by Expanded Dianetics.

But you have made an entrance and you have stirred things up and gotten him more aware and just that way you will find he is more at cause.

His illness or proneness to accidents may not be slight. You may succeed only to the point where he now has a chance, by nutrition, vitamins, minerals, medication, treatment, and above all, auditing, of getting well. Unless you jogged this condition, he had no chance at all: for becoming PTS is the first thing that happened to him on the subject of illness or accidents.

Further, if the person has had a lot of auditing and yet isn’t progressing too well, your simple handling may all of a sudden cause him to line up his case.

So do not underestimate what you or an auditor can do for a PTS. And don’t sell PTS tech short or neglect it. And don’t continue to transfer or push off or even worse tolerate PTS conditions in people.

You CAN do something about it.

And so can they.

LRH:nt.rd 	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1973 	Founder 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 24 APRIL 1972
Issue I
Remimeo
D of P
Auditors	C/S Series 79
Ethics	
Officers	Expanded Dianetics Series 5

PTS INTERVIEWS
(Reference HCO B 17 April 72, C/S Series 76)

Interviews to discover a PTS condition are done on a meter with all reads marked.

The Interview asks (a) about persons who are hostile or antagonistic to the pc, (b) about groups that are anti-Scientology, (c) about people who have harmed the pc, (d) about things  that the pc thinks are suppressive to the pc, (e) about locations that are suppressive to the pc and about past  life things and beings suppressive to the pc.

In doing the Interview the Interviewer must realize that a sick person is PTS. There are no sick people who are not PTS to someone or a group or something somewhere.

A somewhat suppressive pc will find the good hats suppressive. This does not relieve his condition. He is PTS to SP people, groups, things or locations, no matter how SP he is.

He can have been audited by someone he knew in an earlier life and who goofed the session. A few auditors have since been declared. Not because they goofed but because they were SP.

However, some PTS pc will make trouble for good people because that is what PTS means (Potential Trouble Source). So do not buy all the good people he is PTS to.

Further, when you do get the person or group or thing or location the PTS person will F/N VGI and begin to get well.

The PTS condition is actually a problem and a mystery and a withdrawal so it is sometimes hard to find and has to be specially processed (3 S&Ds) to locate it.

Usually it is quite visible.

Don’t have a sick, rollercoaster pc appear for Interview and then say “not PTS”. It’s a false report. It only means the Interviewer did not find it.

The pc sometimes begins to list in such an Interview and such an Interview where a wrong item is found has to be audited to complete the list or find the right item. (See C/S Series 78, HCO B 20 Apr 72, Issue II.)

So Interview worksheets are VITAL.

The Interview should end on an F/N.

The Interview is followed by the Ethics action of HCO PL 5 April 72 or other Ethics actions such as handling or disconnection and posting as called for in policy.

An Interviewer has to use good TRs and operate his meter properly and know 2-way comm and PTS tech.

Some Interviewers are extremely successful. 

Such Interviews and handling count as auditing hours. 

When properly done, plus good auditing on the PTS RD, well people result.

LRH:mes.rd	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1972 	Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

B O A R D  P O L I C Y  L E T T E R

5 APRIL 1972RC
ISSUE I
REVISED & REISSUED 20 JULY 1975 AS BPL
RE-REVISED 6 FEBRUARY 1977
RE - REVISED 2 SEPTEMBER 1977
RE - REVISED 29 DECEMBER 1978
Remimeo 
HCO Sec Hat 
Dir I&R Hat 
E/O Hat 	PTS TYPE A HANDLING
Class IV Grad 

THIS HANDLING IS DONE BY THF ETHICS OFFICER OF AN ORG OR THE HAS OR IN THEIR ABSENCE BY THE QUAL SEC.

It is actually an interview with the suspected PTS person. It is often done on an E-Meter to assist the verification or data.

(See also:
HCOB 10 Aug 73, PTS Handling
HCOB 24 April 72, C/S Series 79, PTS Interviews
HCOB 24 Nov 65, Search and Discovery
Problems of Work, Chapter 6: Affinity, Reality and Communication
BTB 11 Nov 77, Reiss 10 Dec, Handling PTS Situations.)

If a PTS situation actually exists, the interview must result in a written program agreed upon by the preclear with copies to the preclear and to his Ethics file.

As the person does the steps of the program he reports their accomplishment to the org officer who interviewed him.

If the person fails to do the program or the program results in no real change in the situation, then the interviewing officer must require the person to have auditing on the subject (A PTS Rundown given by a qualified auditor in the HGC).

If, after a PTS Rundown the person feels fine but the persons suppressing him are still making trouble, then the Ethics Officer must require the person to have a SUPPRESSED PERSONS RUNDOWN.

The first step of any interview must be the balance of this BPL, clearing up any misunderstood words or definitions in it and making certain the person knows what “PTS” really means.

Part of any handling may include the person being required to take a course that is usually called “The PTS-SP Checksheet”.

But in any case and in any handling, one cannot permit the person to go on being PTS as it can ruin his life.

DEFINITION

Per HCO Policy Letter of 7 May 69, a PTS ..... (meaning a Potential Trouble Source) Type A is a person ... “intimately connected with persons (such as marital or familial ties) of known antagonism to mental or spiritual treatment or Scientology. In practice such persons, even when they approach Scientology in a friendly fashion, have such pressure continually brought to bear upon them by persons with undue influence over them that they make very poor gains in processing and their interest is solely devoted to proving the antagonistic element wrong.”

A SOURCE OF TROUBLE

Such persons with antagonistic family members are a source of trouble to Scientology because their family members are not inactive. In fact from direct experience with Inquiry after Inquiry into Scientology, it has been found that those who have created the conditions which brought about the Inquiry in the first place and those who testified before same have been the wives, husbands, mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, or grandparents of some Scientologist. Their testimony has been full of such statements as, “My son completely changed after he went into Scientology - he no longer was respectful to me.” “My daughter gave up a wonder~ reer as a hairdresser to go into Scientology.” “My sister got these funny staring eyes the way all Scientologists have.”

Their testimony was illogical and their descriptions of what occurred were untrue, but the point of the matter is that such persons DID cause Scientology, Scientology Orgs and fellow Scientologists a great deal of trouble and difficulty.

DON’T CREATE ANTAGONISM

Many Scientologists in their misunderstanding and misapplication of Scientology create the conditions that bring about the antagonism in the first place. A few illustrations of how this is done are as follows:

Scientologist to mother: “I now know where you are on the Tone Scale - 1.1. Boy are you sneaky” (Evaluation and invalidation.)

Father to Scientologist: “Now I don’t want you to borrow the car again without my permission. I have told you time and time....” Scientologist to father: “OKAY’ FINE’ OKAY’ GOOD’ THANK YOU’ I GOT THAT’“ (Not an acknowledgement but an effort to shut up the father.)

Scientologist to older brother: “You murdered me in a past life, you dirty dog’“ (Evaluation and invalidation.)

Mother to Scientologist: “Whatever are you doing?” Scientologist to mother: “I’m trying to confront your dreadful bank.” (Invalidation.)

There are so many ways to misuse tech and to invalidat and evaluate for others in a destructive fashion to bring about bypassed charge, ARC Breaks and upset that they can not all be possibly listed. The idea is NOT to do so. Why create trouble for yourself and for your fellow Scientologists as nothing will have been gained but ill-will?

THE WHY

Per HCO Policy Letter of March 7, 1965, it is a CRIME to be or become a PTS without reporting it or taking action, or to receive processing while PTS. Further as per HCO Policy Letter of October 27, 1964, a PTS may not be trained.

This means that a person who is PTS may not receive processing or training while PTS and it also means that they had better do something to handle their condition. As per older, now cancelled policy, the PTS individual was required to handle or disconnect from the antagonistic family member before he or she could continue with their training or processing. Many took the easy course and merely disconnected as such disconnection was only temporary for the time of their training or processing and so they did not in actual fact handle the condition in their life which was upsetting to them as Scientologists.

Scientology executives have had to promise the New Zealand government that the policy of disconnection from families would be cancelled. This was done. But since that time, we have had more PTS trouble than before.

Therefore, what is needed is a legal and more sensible way to handle.

Using recent technology contained in the Data Series Policy Letters, a new procedure is possible. Each PTS individual should report to Ethics and with the assistance of Ethics, find a WHY as to their familial antagonism and then set about actually handling the situation. The WHY could be that his parents wanted him to be a lawyer and so blame Scientology that he is not one, rather than the fact that he flunked out of law school and couldn’t stand the thought of being a lawyer.

Or perhaps the WHY is that the Scientologist keeps writing her parents for money or the WHY could be that the mother has just read an en heta newspaper article.

In any case the WHY should be found and the PTS individual should then do whatever is necessary to handle.

See the Data Series PLs (must be word cleared on the user) to find out how to find a Why. This is not mandatory -for doing the PTS-SP Detection Checksheet (BPL 31 May 1971RG).

HANDLING

The person who is PTS should be declared as such by Ethics and should not receive Scientology training or processing until the situation has been handled. (The exception to this is a full PTS Rundown done in the HGC.)

The handling could be as simple as writing to one’s father and saying, “I do not complain that you are a janitor, please do not complain that I am a Scientologist. The important thing is that I am your son and that I love and respect you. I know you love me, but please learn to respect me as an adult individual who knows what he wants in life.” Or it could be as follows, “I am writing to you, Daddy, because Mother keeps sending me these dreadful newspaper clippings and they are upsetting to me because I know they are not true. You do not do this and so it is easier for me to write to you.”
 
Again there are as many ways of handling as there are Whys found. Each case is individual. Remember, too, there is always the possibility of a NO situation. And if the person thinks he’s PTS and isn’t, he can get sick. Or if he insists he isn’t and is, he can also get upset. So find if there IS a situation first.

It is the purpose of Ethics to ensure that the situation is handled.

CS-G for

L. RON HUBBARD
FOUNDER

Revised by LRH Tech Expeditor 
LRH:MSH:PA:jm 	Revised 29.12.78 by
Copyright © 1972,1975,1977,1978 
by L. Ron Hubbard 	L. RON HUBBARD
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED	FOUNDER

B O A R D  T E C H N I C A L  B U L L E T I N

11 NOVEMBER 1977
REISSUED 10 DECEMBER 1977
Remimeo
PTS/SP Detection
Routing and	
Handling Course
Snr Cl IV
HANDLING PTS SITUATIONS

The majority of the Technology on how to handle PTSes is already covered in the PTS and SP Detection, Routing and Handling Course. The following LRH tips on handling PTS Type A situations have been excerpted from an LRH lecture as additional data for your use.

“I coached a pc one time as to how to talk to his parents. I coached him very, very carefully. This is a sort of an MAA job, not a C/S job. I made him repeat everything after me, very carefully. ‘And when your mother says to you so and so and so and so what are you going to say?’ It was just good roads and good weather. I forced on him at pain of being squashed, to follow this exact patter with his parents. ‘Hello Mama, how are you? How’s Papa?’ etc., simply good roads and good weather. And she says ‘Yeow yeow yeow yeow yeow yeow’ and you ‘...wha wha wha wha wha’. Why just say ‘well alright, alright’, and don’t answer back and don’t engage in any argument of any kind whatsoever. Give it an acknowledgement. I told him ‘You are calling them up just because you’re passing through and you were interested in how they are, and that is your whole story.’ And he did, and that was the end of the whole situation. The pc came back to battery. Relationships with the parents went totally normal. In other words, he was keeping it going by his worry, his upset, his letters, trying to answer their questions, his conversation with them. Whereas I cut it all into just the pattern of something on the order of about a Tone 3.5 straight across the boards. That was the end of the PTS condition.

“A PTS condition also has outside handling steps. But you as an auditor, or you as a C/S are possibly limited by the fact that you don’t have an MAA, or you do not have somebody who is sufficiently skilled in order to do this job for you, and it winds up blowing everybody’s head off. In such an instance, just get hold of the guy, coach him in exactly what he’s going to say. ‘Oh but no she’d never listen, she won’t. She hasn’t talked to me for seven years. She won’t talk to me in any way shape or form.’ ‘Well alright, alright, alright, that’s fine, good.’ Then you get a little bit inventive and you say ‘Well, when is her birthday? ‘, or something like that, and the pc says ‘Well as a matter of fact, it was a month or two ago,’ and you say ‘Well alright, why don’t you send her a birthday card, Remember to tell her it’s a belated day card, and that you remembered her birthday and always had kind thoughts of her?’ Now the incoming comm may blow his head off, and you just cool him off. Don’t engage in any corner of this. This is not the game you’re playing. You simply acknowledge any nice part that you can find. ‘Papa went hunting, and you’re a dirty dog, and I’ve never seen the like of you, and you’re an ungrateful brat and so on, and why don’t you be like your Great Uncle Oscar who is now doing time in Sing Sing and will be executed next week?’ And so forth, and you say ‘I hope Daddy had a fine hunting trip.’ It’s the only part of it you answer. You coach him into a two-way comm that is well above 2.0 on the tone scale. That mostly consists of acknowledgements and mild interest in what’s gotng on. You will find out these conditions will evaporate, if you can prevent the backflash from being responded to by the PTS person. In other words there are ways to handle this in real life.

“You will find a great many people who are ‘PTS’, are antagonizing the people. They’re antagonizing them beyond belief, and they’re telling them what’s wrong with them, and they’re telling them this and they’re telling them that and so on, and the person eventually gets very resentful. Well even that can be patched up. You are not doing snything at the other end of the line. You cool off the PT scene sufficiently, one way or the other, so that the person can sit in the auditing chair.” LRH (Compiled from LRH Taped Lecture 7511C20)

Julie Gillespie
A/CS-4

Approved by
LRH Pers Comm

Authorized by AVU

for the

BOARDS OF DIRECTORS 
of the 
CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY

BDCS:AH:KU:JG:pat 
Copyright © 1977 
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 24 NOVEMBER 1965

Remimeo
Required for
Level IV Students
To Review Auditors
LEVEL IV

SEARCH AND DISCOVERY

Prerequisite: A Knowledge of Ethics
Definitions and Purposes.

The process called Search and Discovery requires as well a good knowledge of Ethics.

One must know what a SUPPRESSIVE PERSON is, what a POTENTIAL TROUBLE SOURCE is and the mechanism of how and why a case Roller Coasters and what that is. All this data exists in Ethics policy letters and should be studied well before one attempts a “Search and Discovery” or further study of this HCOB. Ethics is not merely a legal action—it handles the whole phenomena of case worsening (Roller Coaster) after processing and without this technology an auditor easily becomes baffled and tends to plunge and squirrel. The only reason a case Roller Coasters after good standard auditing is the PTS phenomena and a Suppressive is present.

THREE TYPES

There are Three Types of PTS.

Type One is the easy one. The SP on the case is right in present time, actively suppressing the person.

Type Two is harder for the apparent Suppressive Person in present time is only a restimulator for the actual suppressive.

Type Three is beyond the facilities of orgs not equipped with hospitals as these are entirely psychotic.

HANDLING TYPE ONE PTS

The Type One is normally handled by an Ethics Officer in the course of a hearing.

The person is asked if anyone is invalidating him or his gains or Scientology and if the pc answers with a name and is then told to handle or disconnect from that person the good indicators come in promptly and the person is quite satisfied.

If however there is no success in finding the SP on the case or if the person starts naming Org personnel or other unlikely persons as SP the Ethics Officer must realize that he is handling a Type Two PTS and, because the Auditing will consume time, sends the person to Tech or Qual for a Search and Discovery.

It is easy to tell a Type One PTS from a Type Two. The Type One brightens up at once and ceases to Roller Coaster the moment the present time SP is spotted. The pc ceases to Roller Coaster. The pc does not go back on it and begin to beg off. The pc does not begin to worry about the consequences of disconnection. If the pc does any of these things, then the pc is a Type Two.

It can be seen that Ethics handles the majority of PTSs in a fast manner. There is no trouble about it. All goes smoothly.

It can also be seen that Ethics cannot afford the time to handle a Type Two PTS and there is no reason the Type Two should not pay well for the Auditing.

Therefore, when Ethics finds its Type One approach does not work quickly, Ethics must send the person to the proper division that is handling Search and Discovery.

TYPE TWO

The pc who isn’t sure, won’t disconnect, or still Roller Coasters, or who doesn’t brighten up, can’t name any SP at all, is a Type Two.

Only Search and Discovery will help.

SEARCH AND DISCOVERY

The first thing to know is that CASE WORSENING IS CAUSED ONLY BY A PTS SITUATION.

There never will be any other reason.

As soon as you doubt this datum and think about “other causes” or try to explain it some other way you no longer prevent cases from worsening and no longer rescue those who have worsened.

The second thing to know is that A SUPPRESSIVE IS ALWAYS A PERSON, A BEING OR A GROUP OF BEINGS. A suppressive is not a condition, a problem, a postulate. Problems and Counter-Postulates come into the matter but the SP as a being or group must always be located as a being or a group, not as merely an idea. As the technology is close to and similar to that of a service facsimile, a poorly trained auditor can get confused between them and produce a condition he says is the cause. Persons who cannot confront and who therefore see persons as ideas not people are the ones most likely to fail in doing Search and Discovery.

The third thing to know is that there can be an actual SP and another person or being similar to the actual one who is only an apparent SP.

An actual SP actually suppresses another.

An apparent SP only reminds the pc of the actual one and so is restimulated into being a PTS.

The actual SP can be in present time (Type One PTS) or is in the past or distant (Type Two PTS).

The Type Two always has an apparent SP who is not the SP on the case, is confusing the two and is acting PTS only because of restimulation, not because of suppression.

Search and Discovery as a process is done exactly by the general rules of listing. One lists for persons or groups who are or have suppressed the pc. The list is complete when only one item reads on nulling and this is the item.
If the item turns out to be a group, one does a second list of who or what would represent that group, gets the list long enough to leave on nulling only one item reading, and that is the SP.

An incident is not a person or a group.

A condition is not a person or a group. And a group is not a person, what you want is one being.

The E-Meter signs are unmistakable and the good indicators come in strongly when the actual SP is found.

This is the entire action. It is liable to the various ills and errors of writing and nulling a list, such as overlisting, underlisting, ARC Breaking the pc by by-passing the item or getting an incomplete list. These are avoided by knowing one’s business as an Auditor and being able to handle an E-Meter with skill and confidence.

When one goofs on a Search and Discovery and finds the wrong actual SP the signs are the same as those where a Type Two is handled as a Type One—not sure, no good indicators, Roller Coasters again, etc.

The actual SP can be back track but it is seldom vital to go far out of PT and usual for a lifetime person to turn up.

Done correctly the pc’s good indicators come in at once, the pc cognites, the meter reacts very well with Blowdowns and repeated long falls, and the pc ceases to Roller Coaster.

Care should be taken not to get too enthusiastic in going far back track on the pc as you run into whole track implants etc, easily handleable only at Level V. The pc can get “over whumped” if you go too far back and you’ll wish you hadn’t. This normally happens however, only when the pc has been ARC Broken by the Auditor, when the right item has been by-passed and the list is overlong, or when 2 or 3 items are still reading on the list (incomplete list).

Locating a Service Facsimile is quite similar to Search and Discovery but they are different processes entirely.

Only the doingness is similar. In Search and Discovery the end product is a being. In Service Facsimile the end product is an item or concept or idea. Don’t get the two mixed.

HANDLING TYPE THREE

The Type Three PTS is mostly in institutions or would be.

In this case the Type Two’s apparent SP is spread all over the world and is often more than all the people there are—for the person sometimes has ghosts about him or demons and they are just more apparent SPs but imaginary as beings as well.

All institutional cases are PTSs. The whole of insanity is wrapped up in this one fact.

The insane is not just a bad off being, the insane is a being who has been overwhelmed by an actual SP until too many persons are apparent SPs. This makes the person Roller Coaster continually in life. The Roller Coaster is even cyclic (repetitive as a cycle).

Handling an insane person as a Type Two might work but probably not case for case. One might get enough wins on a few to make one fail completely by so many loses on the many.
Just as you tell a Type Two to disconnect from the actual SP (wherever found on the track) you must disconnect the person from the environment.

Putting the person in a current institution puts him in a Bedlam. And when also “treated” it may finish him. For he will Roller Coaster from any treatment given, until made into a Type Two and given a Search and Discovery.

The task with a Type Three is not treatment as such. It is to provide a relatively safe environment and quiet and rest and no treatment of a mental nature at all. Giving  him a quiet court with a motionless object in it might do the trick if he is permitted to sit there unmolested. Medical care of a very unbrutal nature is necessary as intravenous feeding and soporifics (sleeping and quietening drugs) may be necessary, such persons are sometimes also physically ill from an illness with a known medical cure.

Treatment with drugs, shock, operation is just more suppression. The person will not really get well, will relapse, etc.

Standard Auditing on such a person is subject to the Roller Coaster phenomena. They get worse after getting better. “Successes” are sporadic, enough to lead one on, and usually worsen again since these people are PTS.

But removed from apparent SPs, kept in a quiet surroundings, not pestered or threatened or put in fear, the person comes up to Type Two and a Search and Discovery should end the matter. But there will always be some failures as the insane sometimes withdraw into rigid unawareness as a final defense, sometimes can’t be kept alive and sometimes are too hectic and distraught to ever become quiet, the extremes of too quiet and never quiet have a number of psychiatric names such as “catatonia” (withdrawn totally) and “manic” (too hectic).

Classification is interesting but non-productive since they are all PTS, all will Roller Coaster and none can be trained or processed with any idea of lasting result no matter the temporary miracle.

Remove a Type Three PTS from the environment, give him or her rest and quiet, do a Search and Discovery when rest and quiet have made the person Type Two.

(Note: These paragraphs on the Type Three make good a promise given in Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health to develop “Institutional Dianetics”.)

The modern mental hospital with its brutality and suppressive treatments is not the way to give a psychotic quiet and rest. Before anything effective can be done in this field a proper institution would have to be provided, offering only rest, quiet and medical assistance for intravenous feedings and sleeping draughts where necessary but not as “treatment” and where no treatment is attempted until the person looks recovered and only then a Search and Discovery as above under Type Two.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:ep.cden
 Copyright ©1965 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 16 AUGUST 1969R
REVISED 25 SEPTEMBER 1978
Class VIII
Class VIIIs	
Class VIII	(Revisions in this type style)
C/S Book	(Ellipses indicate deletions)
Class IV Grad
Checksheet	
HANDLING ILLNESS IN SCIENTOLOGY

Sickness is of course the result of engram chains in restimulation.

One has to ask, however, what causes restimulation to occur?

The answer is out-ruds plus a suppressive environment or situation.

Therefore, obviously, if one wanted to really handle handle handle sickness and do some miracles, one would use the lot of one’s weapons.

Don’t mistake that Dianetics (HCOB 24 July 1969R SERIOUSLY ILL PCS) can all by itself practically bring the dead to life to all intents and purposes and it can be used all by itself.

However, when that doesn’t work completely, then the Class VIII Case Supervisor and well-trained Scientology auditors can step in.

Let us examine the basic full dress parade routine of what Scientology and Dianetics could be used.

1. 	Put in life ruds (as given below).

2. 	3 S & Ds.

3. 	Narrative handling and full preassessment on the sick area, run Triple or Quad, plus other Dianetic Assist actions and any needed medical treatment. (See HCOB 2 April 69RA, Rev. 28.7.78, DIANETIC ASSISTS, which cautions against overwhelming a sick pc with too much restim.)

4. 	NED for OTs (on OT III and above).

Obviously this illness hasn’t a chance at all. It disappears in 1. Or in 2. Or in 3. Or in 4....

The system is obvious. You take away the current out-ruds and the illness can destimulate. You take away the suppressions and destimulation is more positive.

You erase all the engrams and the source is gone.

You do the second, . . . third, and zero flows and the overts and sympathies are also vanished.

On ruds alone you can of course get a recurrence.

You also risk a recurrence on the S & Ds.

The motivators go on the engram chains.

The overts and sympathy for like illness goes on the second, . . . third and zero

LIFE RUDS

As the person with out-ruds makes no real gain it is wise to put ruds in “In life.”

This is done with

“In life have you had an ARC break?”

“In life have you had a problem?”

“In life have you had a withhold?”

If the person has had much auditing you ask after each of the “In life” questions “Was that present in an auditing session?”

S & Ds

The full parade for three S & Ds (as given in HCOB 19 January 1968 in the Class VIII pack) is as follows:

3 item S & D
Fly a rud.
Assess
Withdraw from
Stop
Unmock
Suppress
Invalidate
Make nothing of
Suggest
Been careful of
Fail to reveal

Take the 3 that read best (null to 3 items). Use the one that read most first.

Test one of these items in these two questions to see which question then reads best.

“Who or what has attempted to 	you?”
	
“Who or what have you tried to 	?”

List the best reading question by the laws of listing and nulling. BE EXACT IN FOLLOWING THOSE LAWS or you’ll make the person even sicker!

Use each of the 3 this way.

Prepcheck any item that does not F/N until it F/Ns or proves not to be the correct one in which event correct the list. If the list item does not F/N on being found and indicated, you prepcheck it to F/N.

DIANETICS

The New Era Dianetics HCOBs fully cover assists and Dianetic handling of body problems and illnesses.

This rundown is what could be known as beating an illness to death.

Handling it medically and spiritually should bring home a winner every time.

This full approach is recommended only when one has encountered a resistive situation.

Very often a Dianetic Assist precedes all this.

Usually the Dianetic handling is done without the ruds or S & Ds.

But when you have somebody whose “lumbosis” has not surrendered to Dianetics, you have this full approach to fall back on.

It’s nice to have a full arsenal.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:ldm.ei.rd.rk 
Copyright © 1969, 1978 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 17 APRIL 1972
Remimeo

C/S Series 76

 C/SING A PTS RUNDOWN

 References:	HCO B 9 Dec 71 	PTS Rundown
                	HCO B 20 Jan 72 	PTS Rundown Addition
                	HCO B 13 Feb 72	PTS RD Additional
                    	Issue II 	LRH Data
            	HCO PL 5 Apr 72	PTS Type A Handling
               	HCO B 16 Apr 72	PTS Correction List
          	HCO B 17 Apr 72	C/S Series 76
		C/Sing a PTS RD (this HCO B) 
     		Any subsequent issues.

The whole point of a PTS Rundown is to make a person not PTS any longer.

The point is not to just run some processes. It is to have a person all right now.

To really understand this rundown, one would have to know what PTS is in the first place and why one was doing the rundown.

This would apply to the auditor as well as the C/S.

PTS means POTENTIAL TROUBLE SOURCE. It means someone connected to a person or group opposed to Scientology.

It is a TECHNICAL thing.

It results in illness and rollercoaster and IS the CAUSE of Illness and rollercoaster.

When you do a PTS RD on a pc CORRECTLY he or she should no longer be ill or rollercoaster.

BUT THIS INCLUDES THE PERSON HANDLING HIS PTS CONDITION IN THE REAL UNIVERSE NOT IN JUST HIS BANK.

An auditor and C/S must see that the person is:

(a) 	Handled properly in HCO or by the D of P if HCO isn’t there so that the person handles the PTS Connection itself. (See HCO PL 5 April 72, “PTS TYPE A HANDLING”.)

(b) 	Do the RD correctly (see reference HCO Bs above).

(c) 	D of P Interview the person AFTER the RD is “complete” to be sure the person is now all right (not PTS).

(d) 	Watch the person’s folder for any new signs of illness and rollercoaster and if these occur find out what was missed by assessing PTS RD CORRECTION LIST. (See HCO B 16 April 72.)

(e) 	Handling the PTS RD CORR LIST.

(f) 	Re-interviewing to be sure the person is all right now.

DATA

Anyone handling or auditing or C/Sing PTS cases should have done the PACK “PTS, SP TECH” Pack 1 & Pack 2 which are based on HCO PL 31 May 71 which is the CHECKSHEET for available tech and policy on this subject.

To this checksheet (HCO PL 31 May 71) must be added these issues:

	HCO B	9 Dec 71	PTS Rundown
	HCO B	20 Jan 72	PTS Rundown Addition
	HCO B	13 Feb 72	PTS RD Additional
		Issue II	LRH Data
	HCO PL 5 Apr 72	PTS Type A Handling
	HCO B	16 Apr 72	PTS Correction List
	HCO B	17 Apr 72	C/S Series 76
			C/Sing a PTS RD (this HCO B)
     	Any subsequent issues.

PTS SITUATIONS

The hardest thing to get across about a PTS situation is that it IS the reason for continued illness and rollercoaster (loss of gains).

The condition does  exist. It is in fact common.

We do  have the auditing tech to handle now.

The material has to be applied correctly just like any other material.

The reason we do the rundown is not to do some sessions or sell some auditing or just explain why the person is like that. We do the rundown so the person will no longer be PTS.

The (EP) End Phenomenon of the PTS RD is attained when the person is well and stable.

As a C/S you MUST put a YELLOW TAB marked PTS on a PTS PC Folder that stays on until the person is NO LONGER PTS.

If you do NOT do this there will be about 25% of your pcs or more that YOU WILL BE IN CONTINUAL TROUBLE WITH! Because you will be C/Sing auditing for a person who is PTS, will be ill, will rollercoaster because the person has NOT been handled to EP on being PTS.

These people, by the way, will tell you, “Oh, I’m not PTS.” “But your father is suing the org.” “Oh yes, I know, but it doesn’t bother me. Besides my illness is from something I ate last year. And I rollercoaster because I don’t like the Examiner. But I’m not PTS.” The mystery is solved when you find they haven’t a clue what the letters mean or what the condition is, so give them a copy of HCO PL 5 Apr 72 and let them read it. If they still want to know more give them HCO PL 23 Dec 65. (Remembering it has to be Word Cleared Method 4 or he won’t have a clue even if he reads it.)
We are on no campaign to rid the world of suppressives when we are handling a PTS pc. But facts are facts and tech is tech.

In handling a PTS person as a C/S you are on a borderline of policy violation unless you make the person do what it says in HCO PL 5 April 72 first. That handles the situation itself. Then you can handle the person with the PTS Rundown.

It is a great rundown. Like any other it has a standard way of going about it.

LRH:mes.rd 	L. RON HUBBARD 
Copyright ©1972                             	Founder 
by L. Ron Hubbard                             
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 9 DECEMBER 1971
Remimeo	
Class IV Okay
to Audit
WC 2
*Rate	PTS RUNDOWN
Clay
TRs 4000-9
  4000-10	
CASES

One remaining problem in cases was “PTS phenomena”.

P.T.S. means Potential Trouble Source. When someone is suppressed he becomes a Potential Trouble Source.

There are numerous HCOBs and P/Ls on this subject. All of them are true observations and predictions.

The cause of ROLLERCOASTER is PTS. Rollercoaster means a slump after a gain. Pcs who do not hold their gains are PTS.

S and Ds (for Search and Discovery) was the earlier approach. These are still valid and “3 S&Ds” as a rundown is used in the PTS Rundown without change.

Now with the PTS Rundown, the handling of this common and all too frequent case condition can be handled.

WHO DOES IT

Hopefully it can be done by Class IVs who are also HDCs, HGC Okays to Audits.

For an auditor who is not HDC Class IV Okay to Audit HGC by competent Interneship to attempt a PTS Rundown would be very risky for the pc as it needs exact listing, exact TRs, exact metering, exact Code keeping and very honest auditing and competent C/Sing.

DEVELOPMENT

Earlier discovery and development of the PTS theory is extensively covered.

The recent wrap-up came about through my OT research in November 1971.

The principal breakthrough was realizing one should NOT invalidate having known certain people before.

This is similar to the past life discovery in 1950. Some people thinking this was “unpopular” frowned on it. Some others were only famous characters so flagrantly that past lives were easily invalidated. But people who don’t go past track in Dianetics don’t recover. Even running them as “imaginary” as in Science of Survival advices suddenly breaks through for a stalled Dianetic Case.

In this same way with young men and girls using “I knew you when you were____” for 2D advantage tended to invalidate having known certain individuals before this life.

But now it turns out that the ONLY PTS situation that is serious and lasting and can cause a rollercoaster comes from having known the person before this life.

Possibly in the last life or earlier lives one knew persons before that life too. This however shows up in the 3 S and Ds.

BREAKDOWN

There are only four points of breakdown of the PTS Rundown.

1. 	Improperly audited. Auditor not able to always do a correct list, TRs out, metering out, poor R3R, just plain untrained or not totally familiar with this Rundown.

2. 	Pc not completely set up. Like: Has TA trouble but no C/S 53 done, is a no change case but no GF 40R done, old auditing not repaired by a GF and proper programming or no C/S 54 or too tired or too ill for the R3R.

3. 	The Rundown not fully and completely done, but chopped or left incomplete (pc will still rollercoaster).

4. 	People who “can’t run engrams”—which means a druggie who hasn’t had a full Drug Rundown.

There is nothing especially tricky about the auditing of the PTS Rundown except that all auditing should be of flubless quality and when the PTS RD is flubbed by bad lists or poor R3R or out TRs or poor metering it really IS a mess. The RD is so powerful that errors in C/Sing and auditing it are especially rough.

Currently sick pcs should not be run on the PTS Rundown as a standard practice. It IS what they need BUT you can easily overwhelm a sick pc with engram running.

The time to run a PTS RD is when the pc is set up and when it is noted the pc rollercoasters, not when he collapses with a temperature.

Rollercoaster can also be caused by a bad Interiorization RD or Int repair, out lists, bypassed charge of other descriptions. These should be gotten rid of before a PTS RD is attempted.

BEHAVIOR OF RD

Valence shifts occur rapidly and frequently in PTS RDs and should be noted on the Worksheet.

The R3R can sometimes be a bit of a long haul on a basic incident. Be sure with an L3B. But get an erasure of basic no matter how hard you have to work at it. In the PTS RD incidents can “develop”. Missing pieces can appear. A whole new slant can occur on the subject when one goes to F2 after finishing F1.

Chronic somatics are likely to appear and be handled on this Rundown. And case conditions not previously remedied by other means can be remedied by this Rundown.

END PHENOMENA

There is a point where the pc is absolutely sure he knew the person before this life. This is NOT the EP.

A pc can exteriorize on this RD. That is NOT the EP (but requires an Int RD if none has been done before going on).

THE EP IS A PC WHO IS GETTING AND KEEPING CASE GAINS AND NEVER AGAIN ROLLERCOASTERS.

PARTS

There are four parts to the RD.

(a) 	Present and past S&Ds. Collect them up, handle each valid item with R3R Triple, ARC Brk, PTP, w/h and overts each triple. If no S&Ds exist do “3 S&Ds” and R3R and Ruds as above. If no folder, get the pc to tell you any past S&D items.

(b) 	2WC who the pc has known this lifetime who has troubled or worried him. Include father, mother, wife or wives (husband), brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, grandparents, lovers. Treat any that read as likely. Ask if the pc has known person before this life. If read, R3R Triple, Ruds & Overts Triple.

(c) 	2WC Ask the pc who he has been after this life. Get various names. Ask if known before. Any that so read, R3R Triple, Ruds & Overts Triple.

(d) 	2WC Ask pc places and planets known before this lifetime. Get some. R3R Triple, Ruds & Overts Triple.
That is the extent of the Rundown.

FLOWS

You cannot use Flow 1 as any old direction to or from pc. To do this fouls it up. Flow 1 is to the pc.

Flow 2 is pc to the person (or place).

Flow 3 is the person (or place) to others.

If you did F1 R3R as “Locate a time you knew____” you might get to the pc, pc to the person or the person to others. You would not get a clean motivator F1. This would leave the PTS chain partially run.

This is also true of the ruds.

RE-DOs

If the pc does not recover, then reasons for failure 1 to 4 above should be checked into.

Then the lists and R3R should be handled with L4B and L3B.

Then an overlooked item or person or place should be scouted for and handled. There is no question of the validity of the Rundown. It might have missed. “True love” might have been passed over as unlikely but such obsessive attraction is always based on having known (and probably done in) the other person.

Then the true EP will be attained where it only appeared to be before.

THE COMMANDS

See 3 S&Ds HCO Bs 13 January 1968, “S&Ds”, 19 Jan 68,16 Aug 69, 14 Jan 68, 28 Nov 67, 10 Nov 67, 9 Nov 67.

The commands and actions of doing 3 S&Ds are DRILL TR 4000-9 & TR 4000-10 3 S&Ds. HCO B 9 Oct 71, Issue VI.

The following R3R commands are used in every case. Put the person or place in the blank:

F1. 	Locate a time when _____did something to you. R3R.

F2. 	Locate a time when you did something to _____R3R.

F3. 	Locate a time when_____did something to others. R3R.

RUDS

1. 	Did _____ ARC Brk you? ARCU CDEINR. E/S to F/N.

2. 	Did you ARC Brk _____? ARCU CDEINR. E/S to F/N.

3. 	Did_____ARC Brk others? ARCU CDEINR. E/S to F/N.

ALWAYS DO A FRESH ARCU CDEINR ON EACH E/S.

4. 	Did_____give you a problem? E/S to F/N.

5. 	Did you give ______a problem? E/S to F/N.

6. 	Did_____give others problems? E/S to F/N.

7. 	Did you withhold anything from______? E/S to F/N.

8. 	Did______withhold anything from you? E/S to F/N.

9. 	Did______withhold anything from others? E/S to F/N.

10. 	Did_____commit an overt (harmful act) on you? E/S to F/N.

11. 	Did you commit an overt (harmful act) on _____? E/S to F/N.

12. 	Did_____commit an overt on others? E/S to F/N.

AUDITOR’S LIST OF ITEMS
TO BE RUN

(a) 	Old S&Ds	__________________________________________

		__________________________________________

		__________________________________________

	New S&Ds	__________________________________________

		__________________________________________

		__________________________________________

(b) 	2WC reading items	__________________________________________

		__________________________________________
		__________________________________________

(c) 	2WC after these items	__________________________________________

		__________________________________________
		__________________________________________

(d) 	Places and Planets	__________________________________________

		__________________________________________
		__________________________________________

   	Added Items for PTS	__________________________________________
   	Redo
	__________________________________________

LRH:nt.bh	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1971	Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard	                        
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
		
HCO BULLETIN OF 3 JUNE 1972RA
REVISED 15 OCTOBER 1974
RE-REVISED 8 DECEMBER 1978
Remimeo
and above
Class IV Grad	(Cancels BTB 24 March 1973R,
Checksheet	“PTS RD ERRORS.”)
Ethics Officers
(Revisions in this type style)

PTS RUNDOWN, FINAL STEP

The following is an additional step to the PTS Rundown developed by me and tested at Flag. This step is run after each terminal is run, to prevent bypassing charge.

THE STEPS ARE:

1. 	Select the terminal already run in R3RA and ruds.

2. 	Clear “can’t have,” “couldn’t have” as DENIAL OF SOMETHING TO SOMEONE ELSE. Clear “enforced have” as MAKING SOMEONE ACCEPT WHAT THEY DIDN’T WANT. Have pc get the idea of these with an example or two.

3. 	Run on the SP item “can’t have/enforced have” as motivator repetitive, then overt repetitive, the Flow Three terminal to others, others to terminal and the Flow Zero of the pc to himself because of the terminal (four flows of two commands each or five if the pc is Quad). Check the flows for a read before running them. Do not run unreading flows.

4. 	After the terminal is handled with the four (or five) flows of “can’t have/enforced have” Objective Havingness should be run. Then the next PTS Rundown item is taken up and run on all steps, as above.

THE COMMANDS:

F1. 	Did _____run a can’t have on you? Tell me about it.

	Did _____force something on you you didn’t want?
	Tell me about it.	(Alternate/repetitive to EP.)

F2. 	Did you run a can’t have on_____?
	Tell me about it.
	
	Did you try to force something on_____that he (she, it)
	didn’t want? Tell me about it.	(Alternate/repetitive to EP.)

F3. 	Did _____run a can’t have on others? 
	Tell me about it.

	Did _____force something on others they didn’t want?
	Tell me about it.	(Alternate/repetitive to EP.)

F3A. 	Did others run a can’t have on_____?
	Tell me about it.

	Did others force something on_____that he (she, it) didn’t want?
	Tell me about it.	(Alternate/repetitive to EP.)

F0. 	Did you run a can’t have on yourself because of _____? 
	Tell me about it.

	Did you try to force something on yourself that you didn’t want because of_____ ? 
	Tell me about it. 	(Alternate/repetitive to EP.)

—OBJECTIVE HAVINGNESS——

THEORY

The theory is that SPs are SPs because they deny Hav and enforce unwanted Hav. They also deny do and enforce unwanted do. They also deny be and enforce unwanted be. This is why we have never before been able to run Subjective Hav. It collided with SPs, overts, and withholds on them.

A very full rundown then would be to start with don t be, must be; go on to don’t do must do: end up with can’t have, enforced have. (Not to be run at this time.) Hav alone should handle without resorting to be or do.

END OFF AT ONCE AND BEGIN OBJECTIVE HAVINGNESS IF THE TA SOARS OR THE PC CAVES IN. If this does not handle, then do a C/S 53RL at once and handle.

PTS RD NOTES

With the issue of HCOB 17 Mar 74, TWC, USING WRONG QUESTIONS, it becomes necessary to convert the PTS RD 2WCs for items into L&N questions. Example: Who have you known this lifetime who has troubled or worried you? L&N to BD F/N item.

Avoid listing the same question twice. The L&N for places and planets should be restricted to planets only on VA pcs and an L4BRA used at the first sign of trouble.

Additional PTS RD items can be obtained from past PTS interviews. Done by L&N the RD is very powerful and direct. The pc must be well set up for it.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH:nt. jh.dr
Copyright © 1972, 1974. 1978
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 20 JANUARY 1972R
REVISED 8 DECEMBER 1978
Remimeo
Class IV Grad
Checksheet	(Revisions in this type style)
Checksheet	(Ellipsis indicates deletion)
C/Ses
Class IV Grad
and above
Auditors
Ethics Officers
PTS RD ADDITION

(Refers to:
HCOB 9 Dec 71R PTS RUNDOWN,
Rev. 8 Dec 78 AUDITED)

The only reasons a PTS RD does not work are:

C/S error: 1. Not doing one at all.

C/S error: 2. Doing one in the middle of another RD.

C/S error: 3. Doing one without set-up, including a complete PTS C/S-1.

C/S error: 4. The person was not PTS—which is to say was not chronically ill or roller-coaster and the items or flows didn’t read.

Auditor error: 5. The RD was badly run auditor-wise. R3R was bad, metering poor, ruds not correctly or fully done.

Auditor & C/S error: 6. The RD was quickie, only doing step (a) and brushing it off.

C/S error: 7. Even though the whole RD was done fully, there remained on the case an undetected additional person or thing to which the pc was PTS.

The rules of PTS are

A PERSON WHO ROLLER-COASTERS IS ALWAYS PTS.

A PERSON WHO IS CHRONICALLY ILL ALWAYS IS PTS.

A PTS RUNDOWN THAT DOES NOT WORK HAS NOT BEEN DONE AS PER 1 TO 7 ABOVE.

The remedies to the above are

1. 	Do it.

2. 	Pgm it in correct sequence.

3. 	Set the case up properly so it is running well and past errors handled.

4. 	Establish how well the person holds his gains before pgming one. If any Q at all, do the RD.

5. 	Cram the auditor on TRs, metering, R3RA drills and ruds. Do L4BRA, . . . L3RF on the pc and handle accordingly.

6. 	Complete the rundown.

7. 	2WC “What is your attention on?” to F/N. On PTS Rundown fly all ruds single; L&N “On the PTS Rundown what being or thing was missed?”; R3RA Triple or Quad on it; fly all ruds and overts on it Triple or Quad; run “Can’t Have/Enforce Have” Triple or Quad. If all not very okay now L&N “What other subject or people might have been overlooked on the PTS Rundown?” and handle the item on each step of the rundown per HCOB 9 Dec 71RC, Rev. 8 Dec 78 PTS RUNDOWN.

A PTS RD always works. If it works with a relapse there is an error in it as in the numbered paras above.

THIS IS VITAL TECH TO THE PC. IT MAKES THE MOST DIFFICULT CASES FLY IF IT IS DONE RIGHT.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH:mes.bh. jk 
Copyright © 1972, 1978 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 29 DECEMBER 1978
Remimeo
Cl IV Grad
Checksheet
Class VI
Checksheet 
C/Ss 
Class IV Grad 
Auditors 
Ethics Officers
THE SUPPRESSED PERSON RUNDOWN

A MAGICAL NEW RUNDOWN

At times the results of “ordinary” Scientology tech are extremely impressive, even to me. I am by this time, quite accustomed to miracles as usual, but magic is not quite so commonplace an occurrence, even these days, and is worthy of special note.

Many times the suppressive person to whom the pc is PTS exists in present time and is still capable of causing trouble or upset for the pc. It is to this situation that the Suppressed Person Rundown is addressed.

This new rundown, the Suppressed Person Rundown, produces the wondrous result of changing the disposition of an antagonistic terminal at a distance, by auditing the PTS preclear. Where this terminal was antagonistic, invalidative, hostile or downright suppressive, he will suddenly have a change of heart and seek to make peace with the PTS pc.

This rundown is not considered complete until the magic occurs; that is on this rundown, we take a PTS pc and we audit this pc and audit him and audit him on Problems Processes until a major change occurs in the antagonistic persons universe which prompts him to make a friendly overture to or concerning the pc.

This friendly and unprompted origination or attempt at origination from the antagonistic terminal to or concerning the pc will occur in all cases if Problems Processes are run and are fully flattened. This happens no matter how out of comm the two terminals have been or what length of time has intervened between their last communication .

The rundown is continued until the EP occurs. Each problem process is run to its own EP.

When the PTS Rundown engram running has to be omitted because of Clear or OT this Suppressed Person Rundown can be substituted for the engram part of the PTS Rundown but if so, it is still run to the full EP of the Suppressed Person Rundown .

This is how it works. The pc, due to some act or acts previously committed, has gone the effect of the antagonistic terminal. The terminal then attempts to suppress the pc. The pc, already the effect of the terminal becomes the effect of the suppression. So the pc’s own postulate to improve himself and his conditions is countered by the suppressive terminal’s counter-postulate, and he is thus given a present time problem of sufficient magnitude to prevent case gain, as only a present time problem will halt the progress of a case. To the present time problem are added ARC breaks with the antagonistic terminal, and as only ARC breaks will worsen a case, the result is no gain or deterioration of a case by reason of the suppressive connection in the environment .

A possible simple explanation for what occurs is: the pc, on running Problems Processes, comes up to cause on his problems with the terminal and when he is continued on problems, he will break through and actually run out the antagonistic terminal’s problems which he has given to him.

When this occurs, the formerly antagonistic terminal will get into communication with the pc or by communicating in a friendly way to others about the pc. He will write a letter to make peace, or he will make a phone call to say “All is well,” or he will tell Aunt Sally he feels much better about the pc and has decided to let bygones be bygones. It sometimes occurs that the antago person does not know where the pc is but he will still try to communicate.

This friendly origination by the antagonistic terminal is the EP of the rundown. If the terminal hasn’t yet originated, you haven’t run enough Problems Processes. THE ONLY TIME THIS DOESN’T WORK IS WHEN YOU HAVEN’T RUN ALL POSSIBLE PROBLEMS PROCESSES OR HAVE RUN THEM WITH OUT-TECH SUCH AS A BROKEN METER.

WHEN THE RUNDOWN IS DONE

The Suppressed Person Rundown is done after the education step laid out in HCOB 31 Dec 78 III EDUCATING THE POTENTIAL TROUBLE SOURCE, THE FIRST STEP TOWARD HANDLING: PTS C/S-1, and after a PTS interview or a 10 August interview or an S&D has located the antagonistic terminal and handlings on that terminal have been done, and after the PTS Rundown has been done.

This procedure is run on the antagonistic terminal in all instances, even when the PTS scene has apparently been relieved for the pc on earlier PTS handling. Always run this problems procedure, no matter how successful earlier handlings were. This RD is to repair the relationship.

The pc is given the R-Factor to let the auditor know of any communication he receives from or about the antagonistic terminal. (He should not, however, be told what the EP of the rundown is.)

HOW THE RUNDOWN IS DONE

The Problems Processes used in the Suppressed Person Rundown are given in HCOB 30 Dec 78 SUPPRESSED PERSON RUNDOWN—PROBLEMS PROCESSES and are run Triple or Quad Flow in the order they are given. Each flow is checked for a read before running and each charged flow is taken to the EP of F/N, cog, VGIs.

The EP of the rundown has been reached when the antagonistic terminal originates in a friendly way to the preclear or seeks to communicate to the pc in a friendly manner. It’s not just a cessation of hostilities, it’s more than that. Even if the antagonistic terminal doesn’t know the pc’s address he will find out, or he will put word out and the pc will hear from or about the antagonistic terminal. And it will be a friendly message. Even if the antagonistic terminal doesn’t know the pc’s address, news will reach the pc that the antagonistic terminal wishes bygones to be bygones. That is the EP you are aiming for, and you continue to audit Problems Processes on the pc on the antagonistic terminal until that occurs.

It is very important not to underrun the rundown. Some auditors will be tempted to end off the rundown because the pc has had a major win or ability regained or some such. When the pc has had a major win, you would of course let him have his win and would leave him off auditing until the persistent F/N dies down, but you do not accept as the EP of the rundown anything other than the formerly antagonistic terminal originating, with no coaxing, in a friendly way to or about the pc. You keep running problems until the EP is attained. You do want to see the magic, don’t you? And the only way this rundown can fail is by not continuing to run Problems Processes until this EP is attained.
WHO THE RUNDOWN CAN BE DONE ON

The Suppressed Person Rundown can be done on any PTS person of any case level. It is run with good success on Clears, OTs and Dianetic Clears as well as pcs just beginning their auditing. The only requirement is that any pc who receives the rundown must first have received the PTS C/S-1 per HCOB 31 Dec 78 III and must, if previously unindoctrinated, have been educated into the procedures of Scientology auditing by a Scientology C/S-1 per HCOB 15 Jul 78 SCIENTOLOGY AUDITING C/S-1. And of course, like any other auditing, it is done with the pc’s rudiments in.

AUDITOR AND C/S NOTE

One of the many advantages of the Suppressed Person Rundown is its simplicity. There are very few places where it can go off the rails. This rundown does, however, require expert metering and very standard handling, and the C/S should be alert to the following:

1) 	The auditor must realize that the target of this rundown is not just the pc; the target is the antagonistic terminal the pc is connected to. And the EP is not just a change in the pc, but a change in the antagonistic terminal of a positive, friendly communication to the pc. The auditor and C/S must realize that the above is the target and EP for this rundown.

2) 	ALL Problems Processes must be run on the antagonistic terminal, and failure to run enough Problems Processes is the only thing that will prevent this rundown from working.

3) 	METERING. The auditor who does this rundown must be skilled at metering so he doesn’t miss reads and fail to run reading flows or attempt to run unreading flows. Imprecise metering can undermine the results of the rundown as the running of all charged flows on problems is vital. The auditor must be able to read a meter and must take instant reads which occur instantly on calling the command. (Reference: HCOB 5 Aug 78 INSTANT READS)

4) 	EPs. Each reading flow of each Problems Process must be taken to its full EP which is cog, F/N and VGIs. The C/S should ensure that the processes are indeed taken to EP and should suspect, if there is trouble attaining the rundown EP, that one or more Problems Processes have been left underrun, unflat or unrun.

Some auditors may say they’ve done the rundown and the pc’s in beautiful shape and he’s had tremendous gains and now the Suppressed Person Rundown is complete.

Your answer to this is: “Finish the rundown. Continue until the terminal gets in touch with the pc to make peace.” And sure enough, a day or two or three later the pc, in utter amazement, will report that her sister, who hasn’t spoken to her for 10 years has just sent her an affectionate letter or that his father, who disowned him when he got into Scientology, has just called to say “Hello” and that they had a great chat, just like old times. It always happens when Problems Processes are fully run.

So there you have it, the Suppressed Person Rundown, quite an amazing magical feat, and very easily achieved with good standard auditing. Use it well and fully and you’ll get smashing one-for-one successes on PTS pcs.

LRH:jk	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1978	Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 30 DECEMBER 1978R
REVISED 6 JANUARY 1979
Remimeo
Class IV Grad
Checksheet	(Revisions not printed in a different type style)
Class VI
Checksheet
C/Ses
Class IV Grad
Auditors
SUPPRESSED PERSON RUNDOWN
PROBLEMS PROCESSES

References:
HCOB 29 Dec 78	THE SUPPRESSED PERSON RUNDOWN
PAB 84 15 May 56	THE REASON WHY
HCOB 31 Mar 60	THE PRESENT TIME PROBLEM
HCOB 20 Aug 58	PRESENT TIME PROBLEM—RUNNING OF
PAB 126 15 Dec 57	PROBLEMS: HANDLING AND RUNNING

This bulletin contains the Problems Processes to be run on the Suppressed Person Rundown .

DEFINITION OF PROBLEM

The first and most vital action to begin the Suppressed Person Rundown is to fully clear PROBLEM with the pc as a problem. not as a condition or situation.

THE WAR OF PURPOSES GIVES US WHAT WE CALL PROBLEMS. A PROBLEM HAS THE ANATOMY OF PURPOSES. A PROBLEM CONSISTS OF TWO OR MORE PURPOSES OPPOSED. IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT PROBLEM YOU FACE OR HAVE FACED, THE BASIC ANATOMY OF THAT PROBLEM IS PURPOSE-COUNTER-PURPOSE.

THE DEFINITION OF A PROBLEM IS INTENTION VERSUS INTENTION OR TWO OR MORE OPPOSING AND CONFLICTING VIEWS ON THE SAME SUBJECT.

The dominant operating action of this rundown is knowing what a problem is. Without the auditor feeding the pc a cog, he must clear the definition of problem with the pc so that it is fully understood and the pc can easily make up examples of problems. You’ll get no place on the rundown unless both auditor and pc understand what a problem is.

Running problems comes under a gradient scale of confront and can go on and on before the pc gets up to an awareness of anything.

It’s really a fascinating phenomenon. The person is being harassed all over the place by something or somebody and he will eventually name it and identify it, which is an achievement right there, but when you first start to run problems on it, you’ll find he does not have anything to do with it. It’s all by itself, floating out in space someplace. The problem has nothing to do with him or anything else.

Example:

Auditor: “Tell me a problem with your mother.”

Pc: “She’s never home.”

“She’s never home” is not a problem. A problem is two-terminaled. The problem, as the pc has given it in the example above, does not contain anything live. It’s just a condition. But gradually, as Problems Processes are run, he will come up to an actual statement that the problem is something that has to be solved and that it has something to do with him. Now we’re getting someplace!

PROBLEMS PROCESSES

The processes are taken up in the order they are given. Each flow of each process is checked for a read before running it. using the name of the terminal antagonistic to the pc. Each flow taken up is then run to the EP of cognition, F/N and VGIs.

A copy of this process sheet is placed in the folder of the pc being run on the Suppressed Person Rundown and the flows of each process run are initialed and dated by the auditor when they have been taken to a full EP.

END PHENOMENA

THE SUPPRESSED PERSON RUNDOWN IS TAKEN TO THE EP OF A FRIENDLY AND UNPROMPTED ORIGINATION TO OR ABOUT THE PC BY THE ANTAGONISTIC TERMINAL.

This EP will occur when enough Problems Processes have been fully run on that terminal. The auditor’s metering must be excellent, as to miss reads and leave charged flows unrun can prevent the pc from attaining the EP of this rundown.

(Reference: 	HCOB 5 Aug 78 INSTANT READS
	HCOB 3 Dec 78  UNREADING FLOWS)

If the pc has a big win, end off the session and let him have his win. Do not try to audit over a persistent floating needle or you will end up leaving charged flows unhandled due to the “needle having floated all the way through them.” So give the pc some time off auditing to let him have his win, then resume his sessions so he can be taken to the full and magical EP of this rundown.

THE ONLY TIME THIS RUNDOWN DOESN’T WORK IS WHEN YOU HAVEN’T FULLY RUN ALL POSSIBLE PROBLEMS PROCESSES.

1. 	Ref: CREATION OF HUMAN ABILITY  R2-34

F1: 	Can you recall a problem about (terminal) which concerned you?

	How did it seem to you then?

	How does it seem to you now?

	Can you recall another problem about (terminal) which concerned you?

	(Continue, using the above commands)	to EP____

F2: 	Can you recall a problem (terminal) has had with you which concerned him?

	How did it seem to him then?
	How does it seem to him now’!

	Can you recall another problem (terminal) has had with you which concerned him?
	
	(Continue, using the above commands)	to EP____

F3: 	Can you recall a problem others have had with (terminal) which concerned them?

	How did it seem to them then?

	How does it seem to them now?

	Can you recall another problem others have had with (terminal) which concerned them?

	(Continue. using the above commands)	to EP____

F3A: Can you recall a problem (terminal) has had with others which concerned him?

	How did it seem to him then?

	How does it seem to him now?

	Can you recall another problem (terminal) has had with others which concerned him?

	(Continue, using the above commands)	to EP____

F0: 	Can you recall a problem you have had with yourself because of (terminal) which concerned you?

	How did it seem to you then?

	How does it seem to you now?

	Can you recall another problem you have had with yourself because of (terminal) which concerned you?

	(Continue, using the above commands)	to EP____

II. 	Ref: HCOB 31 Mar 60 THE PRESENT TIME PROBLEM

F1: Tell me your problem with (terminal).

What part of that problem could you confront?	to EP____

F2: Tell me (terminal’s) problem with you.

What part of that problem could he confront?	to EP____

F3: Tell me others’ problem with (terminal).

What part of that problem could they confront?	to EP____

F3A: Tell me (terminal’s) problem with others.
What part of that problem could he confront?	to EP____

F0: Tell me your problem with yourself because of (terminal).

What part of that problem could you confront?	to EP____

III. 	Ref: HCOB 31 Mar 60 THE PRESENT TIME PROBLEM

F1: 	What problem about (terminal) could you confront?	to EP____

F2: 	What problem about you could (terminal) confront?	to EP____

F3: 	What problem about (terminal) could others confront?	to EP____

F3A: What problem about others could (terminal) confront?	to EP____

F0: 	What problem about yourself concerning (terminal)
   	could you confront?	to EP____

IV. 	Ref: HCOB 6 Jul 61 ROUTINE 1A

To be run as a bracket (1-10, 1-10, 1-10, etc. to EP).

1. 	What problem about (terminal) could you confront?

2. 	What problem about (terminal) don’t you have to confront?

3. 	What problem about you should (terminal) confront?

4. 	What problem about you wouldn’t (terminal) confront?

5. 	What problem about (terminal) should others confront?

6. 	What problem about (terminal) wouldn’t others confront?

7. 	What problem about others should (terminal) confront?

8. 	What problem about others wouldn’t (terminal) confront?

9. 	What problem about yourself concerning (terminal) could you confront?

10. 	What problem about yourself concerning (terminal) don’t you have to confront?	to EP____

	Note: What problem about (terminal) could others confront? (or What problem about others could (terminal) confront can be used instead of should whichever checks out on the meter) .

V. 	Ref: HCOB 31 Mar 60 THE PRESENT TIME PROBLEM

F1: 	What two things about (terminal) can you confront?	to EP____

F2: 	What two things about you can (terminal) confront?	to EP____

F3: 	What two things about (terminal) can others confront?	to EP____

F3A: What two things about others can (terminal) confront?	to EP____
F0: 	What two things about yourself concerning (terminal) can you confront?	to EP____

VI. 	Ref: HCOB 31 Mar 60 THE PRESENT TIME PROBLEM

F1: 	Tell me your problem with (terminal).

	How does it seem to you now?
		Alternate repetitive to EP____

F2: 	Tell me (terminal’s) problem with you.

	How does it seem to him now?
		Alternate repetitive to EP____

F3: 	Tell me others’ problem with (terminal).

	How does it seem to them now?
		Alternate repetitive to EP____

F3A: Tell me (terminal’s) problem with others.

	How does it seem to him now?
		Alternate repetitive to EP____

F0: 	Tell me your problem with yourself because of (terminal).

	How does it seem to you now?
		Alternate repetitive to EP____

VII.	Ref: HCOB 19 Nov 65 PROBLEMS PROCESS

F1: 	What problem have you had with (terminal)?

	What solutions have you had for that problem?

(One gets the pc to give his problem then runs TA off solutions. Then a new statement of the problem and more questions about solutions.)	to EP____

F2: 	What problem has (terminal) had with you?

	What solutions has he had for that problem?	to EP____

F3: 	What problem have others had with (terminal)?

	What solutions have they had for that problem?	to EP____

F3A: What problem has (terminal) had with others?

	What solutions has he had for that problem?	to EP____

F0:	What problem have you had with yourself because of (terminal)?

	What solutions have you had for that problem?	to EP____

VIII. Ref: HCOB 19 Jan 61 ADDITIONAL HAS PROCESSES
F1: 	Get the idea of solving a problem with (terminal).
	Get the idea of not solving a problem with (terminal).	to EP____

F2: 	Get the idea of (terminal) solving a problem with you.
	Get the idea of (terminal) not solving a problem with you.	to EP____

F3: 	Get the idea of others solving a problem with (terminal).
	Get the idea of others not solving a problem with (terminal).	to EP____

F3A: Get the idea of (terminal) solving a problem with others.
	Get the idea of (terminal) not solving a problem with others.	to EP____

F0: 	Get the idea of solving a problem with yourself about (terminal).
	Get the idea of not solving a problem with yourself about
	(terminal).	to EP____

IX. 	Ref: CREATlON OF HUMAN ABILITY  R2-71

F1: 	Give me some answers concerning (terminal).	to EP____
F2: 	Give me some answers for (terminal) concerning you.	to EP____
F3: 	Give me some answers for others concerning (terminal).	to EP____
F3A: Give me some answers for (terminal) concerning others.	to EP____
F0: 	Give me some answers for yourself concerning (terminal).	to EP____

X. 	Ref: HCOB 3 May 59 SOLUTION TO SOLUTIONS

F1: 	What solution could you make stick about (terminal)?	to EP____
F2: 	What solution could (terminal) make stick about you?	to EP____
F3: 	What solution could others make stick about (terminal)?	to EP____
F3A: What solution could (terminal) make stick about others?	to EP____
F0: 	What solution about yourself concerning (terminal) could
 	you make stick?	to EP____

XI. 	Ref: HCOB 14 Sep 61 NEW RUDIMENTS COMMANDS

F1: 	Find out if the pc has a reading problem with (terminal).
	If so, run:

	Tell me what is unknown about that problem with (terminal).	to EP____

F2: 	Find out if there is a reading problem (terminal) has with the pc. If so, run:

	Tell me what is unknown to (terminal) about that problem with you.	to EP____

F3: 	Find out if there is a reading problem that others have with (terminal). If so, run:
	Tell me what is unknown to others about that problem with (terminal).	to EP____

F3A: Find out if there is a reading problem that (terminal) has with others. If so, run:

	Tell me what is unknown to (terminal) about that problem with others.	to EP____

F0: 	Find out if the pc has a reading problem with himself because of (terminal). If so. run:

	Tell me what is unknown about that problem with yourself.	to EP____

XII.	Ref: HCOB 7 Sep 64 II  PPS, OVERTS AND ARC BREAKS

F1: 	Tell me something you don’t know about (terminal).	to EP____
F2: 	Tell me something (terminal) doesn’t know about you.	to EP____
F3: 	Tell me something others don’t know about (terminal).	to EP____
F3A: Tell me something (terminal) doesn’t know about others.	to EP____
F0: 	Tell me something you don’t know about yourself because
 	of (terminal).	to EP____

XIII. Ref:  HCOB 24 Feb 59 TECHNICAL BULLETIN
	         HCOB 3 Jul 59 GENERAL INFORMATION

Run Selected Person Overt Withhold Straightwire on the terminal.

F1: 	Think of something (terminal) has done to you.
	Think of something (terminal) has withheld from you.	to EP____

F2: 	Think of something you have done to (terminal).
	Think of something you have withheld from (terminal).	to EP____

F3: 	Think of something others have done to (terminal).
	Think of something others have withheld from (terminal).	to EP____

F3A: Think of something (terminal) has done to others.
	Think of something (terminal) has withheld from others.	to EP____

F0: 	Think of something you have done to yourself because of (terminal).
	Think of something you have withheld from yourself because of (terminal).	to EP____

XIV. Ref: HCOB 15 Oct 58 ACC CLEAR PROCEDURE

F1: 	Tell me your problem with (terminal).
	What part of that problem could you be responsible for?
		Alternate repetitive to EP____

F2: 	Tell me (terminal’s) problem with you.
	What part of that problem could he be responsible for?
		Alternate repetitive to EP____

F3: 	Tell me others’ problem with (terminal).
	What part of that problem could they be responsible for?
		Alternate repetitive to EP____

F3A: Tell me (terminal’s) problem with others.
	What part of that problem could he be responsible for?
		Alternate repetitive to EP____

F0: 	Tell me your problem with yourself because of (terminal).
	What part of that problem could you be responsible for?
		Alternate repetitive to EP____

XV.  Ref: HCOB 31 Mar 60 THE PRESENT TIME PROBLEM

F1: 	What motion of yours has (terminal) been responsible for?	to EP____
F2: 	What motion of (terminal’s) have you been responsible for?	to EP____
F3: 	What motion of (terminal’s) have others been responsible
 	for?	to EP____
F3A: What motion of others’ has (terminal) been responsible for?	to EP____
F0: 	What motion of your own regarding (terminal) have you
	been responsible for?	to EP____
	
XVI. Ref: HCOB 31 Mar 60 THE PRESENT TIME PROBLEM

F1: 	Tell me your problem with (terminal).
	What part of that problem have you been responsible for?	to EP____

F2: 	Tell me (terminal’s) problem with you.
	What part of that problem has he/she been responsible for?	to EP____

F3: 	Tell me others’ problem with (terminal).
	What part of that problem have they been responsible for?	to EP____

F3A: Tell me (terminal’s) problem with others.
	What part of that problem has he/she been responsible for?	to EP____

F0: 	Tell me your problem with yourself because of (terminal).
	What part of that problem have you been responsible for?	to EP____

XVII. Ref: PAB 42 24 Dec 54 SIX BASIC PROCESSES

F1: 	What kind of problems could you have with (terminal)?	to EP____
F2: 	What kind of problems could (terminal) have with you?	to EP____
F3: 	What kind of problems could others have with (terminal)?	to EP____
F3A: What kind of problems could (terminal) have with others?	to EP____
F0: 	What kind of problems could you have with yourself
 	because of (terminal)?	to EP____

XVIII. Ref: PAB 88 12 Jun 56 THE CONDITIONS OF AUDITING

F1: 	What problem could (terminal) be to you?	to EP____
F2: 	What problem could you be to (terminal) ?	to EP____
F3: 	What problem could (terminal) be to others?	to EP____
F3A: What problem could others be to (terminal)?	to EP____
F0:	 What problem could you be to yourself because of
	(terminal)?	to EP____

XIX. Ref: HCOB 17 Mar 60 STANDARDIZED SESSIONS

F1: 	Tell me a problem (terminal) would be a solution to.	to EP____
F2: 	Tell me a problem for (terminal) that you would be a
	solution to.	to EP____
F3: 	Tell me a problem for others that (terminal) would be
	a solution to.	to EP____
F3A: Tell me a problem for (terminal) that others would be
	a solution to.	to EP____
F0: 	Tell me a problem concerning (terminal) you yourself
	would be a solution to.	to EP____

XX. Ref: CREATION OF HUMAN ABILITY  page 51—R2-20

F1: 	What kind of a problem could (terminal) be to you?
	Could he be that problem?
	Can you see yourself figuring on it?
	Give me another problem (terminal) could be to you.
	Can he be that problem? 	and so on to EP____

F2: 	What kind of a problem could you be to (terminal)?
	Can you be that problem?
	Can you see (terminal) figuring on it?
	Give me another problem you could be to (terminal).
	Can you be that problem? 	and so on to EP____

F3: 	What kind of a problem could (terminal) be to others?
	Can (terminal) be that problem?
	Can you see others figuring on it?
	Give me another problem (terminal) could be to others.
	Can (terminal) be that problem? 	and so on to EP____

F3A: What kind of a problem could others be to (terminal)?
	Can others be that problem?
	Can you see (terminal) figuring on it?
	Give me another problem others could be to (terminal).
	Can others be that problem? 	and so on to EP____

F0: 	What kind of a problem could you be to yourself because of (terminal)? 
	Can you be that problem? 
	Can you see yourself figuring on it? 
	Give me another problem you could be to yourself because of (terminal). 
	Can you be that problem? 	and so on to EP____

(XI. Repeat same process, using solutions, as follows:

F1: What kind of a solution could (terminal) be to you?
	Could he be that solution?
	Can you see yourself figuring on it?
	Give me another solution (terminal) could be to you.
	Can he be that solution? 	and so on to EP____

F2: 	What kind of a solution could you be to (terminal)?
	Can you be that solution?
	Can you see (terminal) figuring on it?
	Give me another solution you could be to (terminal).
	Can you be that solution? 	and so on to EP____

F3: 	What kind of a solution could (terminal) be to others?
	Can (terminal) be that solution?
	Can you see others figuring on it?
	Give me another solution (terminal) could be to others.
	Can (terminal) be that solution? 	and so on to EP____

F3A: What kind of a solution could others be to (terminal)?
	Can others be that solution?
	Can you see (terminal) figuring on it?
	Give me another solution others could be to (terminal).
	Can others be that solution? 	and so on to EP____

F0: 	What kind of a solution could you be to yourself because of (terminal)?
	Can you be that solution?
	Can you see yourself figuring on it?
	Give me another solution you could be to yourself because of (terminal).
	Can you be that solution? 	and so on to EP____

XXII. Ref: CREATION OF HUMAN ABILITY  R1-11

F1: 	What kind of a problem can (terminal) be to you in havingness?
	What kind of a problem can (terminal) be to you in not havingness?	to EP____

F2: 	What kind of a problem can you be to (terminal) in havingness?
	What kind of a problem can you be to (terminal) in not havingness?	to EP____

F3: 	What kind of a problem can (terminal) be to others in havingness?
	What kind of a problem can (terminal) be to others in not havingness?	to EP____

F3A: What kind of a problem can others be to (terminal) in havingness?
	What kind of a problem can others be to (terminal) in not havingness?	to EP____

F0: 	What kind of a problem concerning (terminal) can you be to yourself in havingness?
	What kind of a problem concerning (terminal) can you be to yourself in not havingness?	to EP____

XXIII. Repeat same process using solutions as follows:

F1: 	What kind of a solution to havingness can (terminal) be to you?
	What kind of a solution to not havingness can (terminal) be to you?	to EP____
F2: 	What kind of a solution to havingness can you be to (terminal)?
	What kind of a solution to not havingness can you be to (terminal)?	to EP____
F3: 	What kind of a solution to havingness can (terminal) be to others?
	What kind of a solution to not havingness can (terminal) be to others?	to EP____
F3A: What kind of a solution to havingness can others be to (terminal)?
	What kind of a solution to not havingness can others be to (terminal)?	to EP____
F0: 	What kind of a solution to havingness concerning (terminal) can you be to yourself?
	What kind of a solution to not havingness concerning (terminal) can you be to yourself?	to EP____

XXIV. Ref: CREATION OF HUMAN ABILITY  R2-20

	Have the pc pick out or pick up a room object. have him examine this object until he is sure it is real.

F1: 	What problems could this object be to you because of (terminal)?	to EP____

F2: 	What problems could this object be to (terminal) because of you?	to EP____

F3:	What problems could this object be to others because of (terminal)?	to EP____

F3A: What problems could this object be to (terminal) because of others?	to EP____

F0: 	What problems could you cause yourself over this object because of (terminal)?	to EP____

	On each flow the command is run repetitively until the pc is convinced that he can create problems at will.

XXV. Ref: HCOB 7 Sep 64 II  PPS, OVERTS AND ARC BREAKS

F1: 	Do you have a problem with (terminal)?
	What communication have you left incomplete about that problem?	to EP____ 

F2: 	Does (terminal) have a problem with you?
	What communication has he left incomplete about that problem?	to EP____

F3: 	Do others have a problem with (terminal)?
	What communication have they left incomplete about that problem?	to EP____

F3A: Does (terminal) have a problem with others?
	What communication has he left incomplete about that problem?	to EP____
F0: 	Do you have a problem with yourself because of (terminal)?
	What communication have you left incomplete with yourself about that problem?	to EP____

XXVI. Ref: HCOB 21 Jul 59 HGC ALLOWED PROCESSES

F1: 	From where could (terminal) communicate to you?	to EP____

F2: 	From where could you communicate to (terminal)?	to EP____

F3: 	From where could others communicate to (terminal)?	to EP____

F3A: From where could (terminal) communicate to others?	to EP____

F0: 	From where could you communicate to yourself concerning (terminal)?	to EP____

LRH:jk	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1978	Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

***

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 15 DECEMBER 1973
Remimeo
All Levels
Add Level II
Ethics Officers	THE CONTINUOUS MISSED W/H
Masters at Arms	AND CONTINUOUS OVERT
C/Ses	WITH DATA ON DEGRADED BEINGS
AND FALSE PTS CONDITIONS

Reference: (1) Tape List and HCO B List of Level II,
Page 4 HCO P/L 26.1.72, Issue VI, concerning Withholds and Overts.
(2) “Admin Know-How—Alter-Is and Degraded Beings”, HCO B 22 Mar 67.

There are two special  cases of withholds and overts. They do not occur in all cases by a long ways. But they do occur on a few cases. These are CONTINUOUS MISSED WITHHOLDS and CONTINUOUS OVERTS.

This is not quite the same as “The Continuing Overt Act” HCO B 29 September 65. In that type the person is repeating overt acts against something usually named.

THE CONTINUOUS MISSED W/H

A Continuous Missed Withhold occurs when a person feels some way and anyone who sees him misses it.

Example: A doctor feels very unconfident of his skill. Every patient who sees him misses the fact that he is not confident.  This reacts as a missed withhold.

It is of course based upon some bad incident that destroyed his confidence (usually of an engramic intensity).

But as the person actively withholds this, then those seeing him miss the withhold.

This could work in thousands of variations. A woman feels continuous disdain for her child but withholds it. The child therefore continuously misses a withhold. All the phenomena of the missed w/h would continuously react against the child.

Probably all dishonest social conduct brings about a Continuous Missed Withhold. The politician who hates people, the minister who no longer believes in God, the mechanic who privately believes he is a jinx on machinery, these all then set up the phenomena of missed withholds on themselves and can dramatize it in their conduct.

THE CONTINUOUS OVERT

A person who believes he is harmful to others may also believe that many of his common ordinary actions are harmful.

He may feel he is committing a Continuous Overt on others.

Example: A clothing model believes she is committing a fraud on older women by displaying clothing to them in which they will look poorly. In her estimation this is a Continuous Overt Act.  Of course all older women miss it on her.
Appearance, just being alive, can be considered by some as an overt.

Missed withhold phenomena will result.

DEGRADED BEINGS

The Continuous Withhold and Continuous Overt are probably a basis of feeling degraded.

Degraded Beings, as described in “Admin Know-How—Alter-Is and Degraded Beings”, HCO B 22 Mar 67, are that way at least in part because they have some Continuous Missed Withhold or a fancied Continuous Overt Act.

This makes them feel degraded and act that way.

HANDLING

One can add to any program a check for a Continuous Missed Withhold or Continuous Overt as an additional version of rudiments.

A master question, which could be broken down into three lists which would have to be done by the laws of L&N, would be, “When anyone looks at you what feeling (action, attitude) of yours do they miss?” Then, “When was it missed?” “Who missed it?” and “What did he do that made you believe it had been missed?”

Another approach, less dangerous in that lists aren’t made, would be:

For Continuous Missed Withhold the question could be, “Is there some way you feel that others don’t realize?” And with 2wc uncover it. Then ask, “Who misses this?” with answer, followed by, “When has someone missed it?” with E/S to an earlier time. Followed by, “What did he (or she) do that made you think he (or she) knew?” This will key it out and can change behavior.

For Continuous Overt Act it would be, “Is there something you do that others do not know about?” With 2wc to cover it and get what it is. Then ask, “Who has not found out about it?” with an answer. And then, “When did someone almost find out?” “What did he (or she) do that made you think he (or she) knew?”

Each of the above questions should be F/Ned.

MOTION

People who have Continuous Withholds or Overts tend to be very slow, flubby and impositive. They have to be very careful. And they make mistakes. Slowness or robotness are keys to the presence of Continuous Missed Withholds or Overts.

PTS

Quite often a case is FALSELY LABELED PTS when in fact it is really a matter of Continuous Missed Withholds and Continuous Overts.

When a “PTS” person does not respond to PTS handling easily then you know you are dealing with Continuous Missed Withholds and/or Continuous Overts.

SUMMARY

These conditions are not present in all cases. When they are you have a Degraded Being. When a “PTS” person does not respond to PTS handling, try Continuous Missed Withholds and Continuous Overts. You can prevent blows, handle much HE and R and change character in this way.

LRH:nt.rd	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1973	Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
		
HCO BULLETIN OF 20 OCTOBER 1976
Remimeo
DPE
Ethics Officer	Issue II
PTS/SP Checksheet	
PTS HANDLING

Once in a while I hear of PTS handlings that “didn’t work” or “still PTS” or some such. Or I’ll come across such extremes as a PTS is virtually an incurable leper to be shunned and kept isolated or almost everyone is PTS to some degree so what can you really do about it. The basic thing to realize is that PTSness, like any other case condition afflicting Man, responds to plain old standard tech. But one has to have studied and understood that tech to apply it, naturally.

I recall years ago in handling PTSes, that none of them at first knew what PTS really meant or what it was all about even when they used the term freely! So I recently called for a pilot to see what would be the effect of a study method of curing PTSes.

FIRST PILOT

Before the final pilot was done, an earlier pilot was attempted by an Aide which was not conducted as laid down. CS-5 reviewed the failed pilot to find why so many failed on it. 4 out of 6 were never completed and the 2 that did failed.

CS-5 reported “What I found on these was that they uniformly were not PTS in the first place or were PTS but that was not the major trouble with the person. Three of the cases (2 on auditing and I on study) were out-ethics, R/Sing, Exp Dn cases who were trying to use PTS as the reason for their behavior. Thus handling their PTSness would not resolve anything. The most interesting case here was the study one who realized that he was not PTS and that that had been a wrong indication and that what was really wrong with him was that he had bad intentions and was committing overts. One of the audited cases had a similar realization but has not done as well on post and did get very sick 2 months or so later. Of the other 3 pilot cases in this first batch one could only come up with in-the-org terminals so is another Exp Dn case and the other 2 assigned to study were severely bugged students so never got off the ground (one has now finished the course 4 months later). So that’s what happened to the original pilot.”

The second pilot was then ordered to determine the original possibility, that people could study their way out of being PTS.

SECOND PILOT

Three were put onto the PTS/SP Checksheet to study and three were handled by internes who had done the PTS/SP Checksheet themselves. The cases handled by auditing/interview steps completed their handlings within 10 hours. The study cases averaged 4-6 weeks of part-time study. Two studiers from the original pilot also completed the course. All were then watched for bad originations to the Examiner, medical reports, ethics trouble or trouble on post. In all cases, including those not yet complete on study, none of these indicators showed up. One case originated case troubles but this turned out to be one of the “Exp Dn” cases not PTSness.

On the study pilot the daily reports and success stories on completion uniformly mention more certainty, more stability and being more at cause with the data. Of particular interest is that three of the participants “cogged” they were not actually PTS (yet evidence of real PTS sits had gotten them on the project) but while they were studying they would align past PTS handlings they didn’t fully understand at the time, spot why past PTS terminals were correct or incorrect, spot terminals who gave them a hard time in the past and see why certain people behaved the way they did. In short it appears the studiers were blowing charge on their past PTS handlings and on terminals in their life almost like an auditing session and while they were saying not PTS, no longer PTS (now that they had the data) is probably closer to the truth. All are reported to be doing well on post with no illness, roller-coaster or ethics trouble.

The PTS handlers (who had done the PTS/SP pack) were of particular use where the person had a study bug that needed handling before study could be done and assisting in working out the handlings for PTS sits that were uncovered. Also S&Ds and 10 Aug HCOB handlings and PTS interviews are not Solo actions. And it takes hours, not intensives to handle.

FALSE PTS

As noted from the first pilot false PTSness must be watched for as unhattedness, ignorance of Scientology basics for handling life, past bad auditing uncorrected as well as unhandled bad intentions and personal out-ethics can be mistaken for PTSness and won’t resolve as PTSness. This should be suspected when your “PTSes” start going above 20% of staff and public.

SUMMARY

We have had the tech of PTSness for years, but it wasn’t being fully used and then got mixed in with Exp Dn. PTSness can be handled routinely when the tech is fully known and applied. A PTS person can be brought to cause over his situation through study of the PTS tech. This is vitally important for staff. We can handle and the person himself can handle.

There is no substitute for understanding.

LRH:JE:nt	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1976	Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED	As assisted by CS-5

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 4 OCTOBER 1978
Remimeo 
Auditors 
C/Ses 
Class IV Grad 
Tech/Qual
Interiorization Rundown Series 1

INTERIORIZATION HANDLING SIMPLIFIED

	(Ref: 	HCOB 4 Jan 71R	Int RD Series 2, Exteriorization and High TA,
			The Interiorization Rundown Revised
		HCOB 24 Sep 781	Int RD Series 4, Urgent—Important,
			The End of Endless Int Repair Rundown.)

Exteriorization

Exteriorization is defined as the act of moving out of the body with or without full perception.

It is the fact of this act which proves that the individual is not a body but an individual. This discovery in 1952 proved beyond any question the existence of a thetan, that the individual was a thetan, not a body, and disproved that Man was an animal, and proved that he was a spiritual being, timeless and deathless.

_________

The issues on exteriorization and interiorization and the handling of out-Int have now been collected into the Interiorization Rundown Series.

We have had the remedy for out-Int, the Interiorization Rundown, for some years now, but we have also had pcs who ran into the need for excessive repair of the remedy itself. Much of this need for repair has stemmed from auditor errors in running or repairing Int, and these have been enumerated on other bulletins.

Whatever the reasons for repair, a simple, effective method of repairing Int was needed. This need has now been filled with the release of the new End of Endless Int Repair Rundown.

With the research that was done to develop this repair rundown which uses Recalls, I have also had the opportunity to reevaluate the original Int Rundown itself. The result is a newly revised Int Rundown.

So we have two very effective new tools for handling Int:

1. 	A simplified Interiorization Rundown

2. 	The End of Endless Int Repair Rundown, which handles Int repair smoothly and terminatedly by a special method of assessment and running it on Recall flows.

The full steps of both of these rundowns are included in issues in the Interiorization Rundown Series.
NOTE: Per HCOB 12 Sep 78, “Urgent Important, Dianetics Forbidden on Clears and OTs,” Dianetic Clears, Scn Clears and OTs are not to be audited on the Int Rundown as it uses Dianetics. They may be run on The End of Endless Int Repair RD (HCOB 24 Sep 78 I, Int RD Series 4), as it runs Int on Recalls.

Additionally, the basics on exteriorization and interiorization are covered quite fully in the Int RD Series, particularly in HCOB 4 Jan 71R, Exteriorization and High TA, The Interiorization Rundown Revised.

Any auditor who is going to go near an Int Rundown or an Int repair action must know those fundamentals cold.

He must understand that it is the first of a chain or the first part of an experience or a first experience (basic on the chain of incidents) that has to be run for the chain or incident to erase. In other words, he must understand the principle of getting the earlier beginning to an incident or an earlier incident in order to erase a chains as in R3RA.

He must understand that if one is IN something, he must have gotten into it. And that, therefore, the beginning of an exteriorization is an interiorization.

The full theory on this also is covered in the above HCOB 4 Jan 71R, which the auditor should be fully familiar with.

There is some further data which you should have, on the subject of Int and flows.

Basically, Int is a compound of stuck flows and prior incidents. There is a stuck flow of obsessively going in. In most of the pc’s Int engrams you’ve got an operating trigger that puts him into them. The earlier beginning is always “in.” These must be audited out, blown, before you’re through with Int.

The way this trigger works is, for example: A pc may blow out of his head with F/N, VGIs on Tuesday. But he has not erased the basic on Int. He went out on a “reaction flow” on Tuesday. On Friday he comes in with his TA at 5. What has happened is the flow has retriggered. He’s now blown back in on a “re-reaction flow.” Any regular auditing and he will plow in deeper. So you’ve got to handle his Int terminatedly.

Prior to now, an Int Rundown has been done by clearing and then assessing the Int buttons “went in” and “go in.” If one of them read the Int button was first run on Recall Triple or Quad Flows, next on Secondaries Triple or Quad Flows, and then on Engrams Triple or Quad Flows. This handled Int for many, many pcs. But it is probable that one reason we also got so many Int repairs was that in many of these repair cases the pc never ran any basic. Beginning the Int Rundown with Recalls with the stuck flow of “going in” still in operation you could get a key-out, key-in, key-out, key-in repeatedly and not get to the basic.

We had an exteriorization command in the early years which was “Try not to be three feet back of your head,” and it exteriorized people. But all that did was unstick the flow and trigger the person out of his head. You’re likely to get the same result if you run Int by Recall first crack. You give the command “Recall a time....” and boom, he’s out. But he hasn’t run the basic on Int.

So if you entered an Int Rundown on a Recall basis you could get some of that mechanism cutting in. And you could get repetitive Int, with the engrams he didn’t run out keying in.

There is another phenomenon that can occur. Time itself can be a stuck flow.

You get a certain number of pcs who can’t move back on the time track more than minutes. They get stuck on the stuck flow of time. On Recall commands such a pc may F/N very quickly. (Or even on an R3RA command, “Locate a time when you went in.”  he may run shallow, he may run only locks and F/N quickly.) Then suddenly he hits the skids and goes hurtling backtrack. The flow is reversed and he doesn’t fire out of his head, he fires backwards on the time track, on a restim. And you’ll have out-Int repeating itself all over again. That’s the rest of the mechanism.

Addressed in R3RA engram auditing properly done, always getting the earlier beginning and/or the earlier incident, these chains of incidents on the stuck flow of going in can be audited out in an orderly fashion on the majority of pcs. You erase the engrams and you dissolve the obsessive stuck flow of going in, and you have the EP of Int.

Or, at some point in the engram auditing the flow gets unstuck enough to heave into reverse, it heaves in the opposite direction and it erases itself and the whole package blows. That, too, is an EP for Int which must not be ignored by the auditor. (See HCOB 4 Jan 71R.)

Thereafter, the pc will usually have no more trouble or concern with Int.

So we are safer entering the Int Rundown by running engrams to begin with, and running only engrams on that rundown, and that is how the revised Int Rundown has now been set up. We had better run the engram chains and their basics out first and then, if repair is needed, repair them with Recalls, using the End of Endless Int Repair Rundown.

MORE ON RECALLS

Entering Int with Recalls has its liabilities, as described above. But there are also definite advantages in having Recalls as a tool to use, as necessary, in running Int on some cases.

You are going to encounter some few isolated instances where the pc can’t run engrams for one reason or another. Such pcs can then be audited by the Recall method as given in the End of Endless Int Repair Rundown, using the rundown not as a repair but as a process. Dianetic Clears, Scn Clears and OTs can be handled on out-Int with this method. It can also be used to relieve out-Int on weak or ill pcs until they are up to running engrams.

It is not a fast method. Using the Recall system (per End of Endless Int Repair RD) to run out-Int, can go on and on. In time though, by taking the pc up on a gradient, you can eventually get him to a point where he is actually as-ising engrams, blowing them by inspection. The revised Int Rundown is by far the swifter route for handling a pc initially on out-Int.

However, the use of Recalls is ideal in the handling of repair of Int, when it is necessary after an Int Rundown has been done. The End of Endless Int Repair Rundown gives the exact method for assessment of the Int buttons and flows and running these on Recalls as a repair action. And here we get a smooth run on the Recall flows and the resolving of any Int troubles.

Thus, from this research we get a new, simplified version of the Int Rundown and an invaluable process for any Int repair.

Further issues in the Int Rundown Series cover these and other technical data relating to Int.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH: jk 
Copyright © 1978 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
		
HCO BULLETIN OF 4 JANUARY 1971R
REVISED 24 SEPTEMBER 1978
Remimeo
HGC Auditors
Scn Chkshts	(Revises and replaces HCOB
Cl VIII	22 Mar 70 of same title by
Chkshts	changing clearing of commands
Cl IV Grad	and wording of commands in
Chksht	Exteriorization Intensive . )

(Revisions in this type style)
(Ellipsis indicates deletion)

Interiorization Rundown Series 2

EXTERIORIZATION AND HIGH TA
THE INTERIORIZATION RUNDOWN REVISED

(This bulletin has been revised 24 Sep 78 to give the new, simplified Int Rundown Revised, which deletes the Recall and Secondary steps, includes the full array of Int buttons and the New Era Dianetics Int command. It corrects and replaces all previous issues on the original Int Rundown and all previously issued Int Rundown commands. It includes notes on the new “End of Endless Int Repair” Rundown.)

	Ref:	HCOB 25 Sep 78 I	Int RD Series 5
			QUAD COMMANDS FOR INT BUTTONS
		HCOB 24 Sep 78/	Int RD Series 4
			URGENT IMPORTANT, THE END OF
			ENDLESS INT REPAIR RUNDOWN
		HCOB 4 Oct 78	Int RD Series 1
			INTERIORIZATION HANDLING SIMPLIFIED
		HCOB 12 Sep 78	URGENT IMPORTANT, DIANETICS
			FORBIDDEN ON CLEARS AND OTs
		Cancels:
		BTB 30 Dec 71	IMPORTANT, INTERIORIZATION RD
			COMMANDS
		BTB 10 Jul 69R II	EXTERIORIZATION REMEDY
		BTB 15 Feb 72 I	AN OPTIONAL INT RD STEP
		BTB 13 Mar 73R	HANDLING INT/EXT

NOTE: Clears, OTs and Dianetic Clears are NOT audited on this Int Rundown as they are not to be audited on Dianetics. The reference for handling repair of out-Int on these pcs and pre-OTs is HCOB 24 Sep 781, Int RD Series 4 URGENT IMPORTANT, THE END OF ENDLESS INT REPAIR RUNDOWN.

For a long while we have known that if you audit a person after he or she has exteriorized, you often get a high tone arm, somatics and an upset case.

The answer has been to cease to audit a person after exteriorization has occurred.

This is so much a fact that five out of five “in trouble” cases I recently examined had every one of them been audited for some time after they exteriorized. The TA had or had not gone high but the cases were bogged. They revived at once when the fact of exteriorization was located. F/N, VGIs and when rehabbed (by counting number of times) somatics ceased.

The rule has been—don’t audit after a pc has exteriorized.

This is one of those very fundamental things that seems to defy research and yet if not solved will keep things messed up. Persons who exteriorize on lower grades need their upper grades and yet if audited further may mess up. This places a limit on auditing and yet the person may still have aberrations and somatics. But the fact of having exteriorized bars the road.

So I got to work and made a breakthrough on it. Hurrah!

It has now been fully vindicated by long tests and is now released for general use.

EXTERIORIZATION

Exteriorization is defined as the act of moving out of the body with or without full perception.

It is the fact of this act which proves that the individual is not a body but an individual . This discovery in 1952 proved beyond any question the existence of a thetan, that the individual was a thetan, not a body, and disproved that Man was an animal and that he was a spiritual being timeless and deathless.

Techniques have existed since 1952 that exteriorize a person. These are not now used because (a) the person, still being aberrated and not Clear, soon returns to his body and (b) when audited thereafter has trouble.

This is a major problem a thetan sometimes has at death. How to exteriorize? He makes it eventually of course but he should be able to do so at once.

But, in my research, I found it unreasonable that a person would be hard to audit just because he had exteriorized and had re-interiorized. For he has obviously done just that at every death and birth and must have done so hundreds of billions of times. So why should a recent exteriorization then make him hard to audit? Yet it did.

My asking of that question was the first breakthrough. The rest soon followed.

ENGRAM BEHAVIOR

We know in Dianetics that if you continue to run the last part of an engram which has in fact an earlier beginning which isn’t being run and is ignored the TA will go up.

The reason for this is that the first of a chain or the first part of an experience or a first experience (basic on a chain of incidents) has to be run for the chain or incident to erase.

If you only ran the end of incidents you would get a high TA and no erasure.

If you only ran incidents late on the chain you would get a high TA.

Pcs are uncomfortable, feel under pressure, when their TA is high (above 3.5 or up).

If you don’t erase incidents or chains of incidents when auditing (or key them out as in release) you get a perpetually high TA.

High TA cases have been “overrun” on something. That however is a very oversimplified explanation. The truth is that they have been run on something that didn’t erase. The something has an earlier beginning than was detected or an earlier incident. In life one, having engrams about it, adds new incidents in living until something is “overrun” or done too often. The TA is therefore high.

A TA records MASS. Mental mass has a higher electrical resistance and so measures more “ohms” of resistance, an electrical term for the trouble electricity has in passing through something. The more resistance the more units of resistance are recorded on the meter. The TA actually measures resistance.

Thus, the end of an incident can be restimulated. If the beginning of it is never touched then one will just accumulate more and more mass.

THE MISSED BEGINNING

What has happened here, as regards exteriorization is that we have concentrated on EXTERIORIZATION.

If one is IN something, he must have gotten into it.

Therefore the beginning of an exteriorization is the INTERIORIZATION.

The being went into something before he went out of it.

Exteriorization occurs at death. That’s an engram. Interiorization occurs at birth, that’s an engram.

So when somebody goes exterior he is actually liable to key-in having gone interior in the first place.

Get it?

So when you exteriorize somebody or he exteriorizes during auditing he gets keyed-in a bit and without having audited earlier INTERIORIZATIONS, he has been put in the last part (exteriorization) of an incident which began with interiorization.

Not only are you touching on something (exteriorization) late on a chain (which has hundreds of billions of like incidents ahead of it), you are also touching something which is late in the incident (which began with interiorization).

On both counts then, the TA may go high.

THE REMEDY

The remedy is to audit out interiorizations (i.e., times the person went in) using the correctly assessed Int button.

If this is done, then the pc can be audited all you want after exteriorization.

Auditing the interiorizations with R3RA, Quad or Triple Flows, restores the possibility of auditing a pc after an exteriorization has occurred in auditing.

INT RUNDOWN REVISED BY STEPS

Based on recent researches, the original Int Rundown has been newly revised and simplified.

A full array of Int buttons has been added.

The Recall and Secondary steps have been deleted, so the pc gets to the basic of any Int trouble on a faster route.

Int chains are run using a simpler R3RA command for Int, and each chain taken to full New Era Dianetics EP.

The revised rundown follows.

THE PROCESS

THE INTERIORIZATION RUNDOWN REVISED

The case supervision directions for an Interiorization RD are to be done by a Scientology auditor who is also a Hubbard New Era Dianetics Auditor.

He must have an excellent command of metering, TRs, R3RA, the theory of Int and the Int RD commands, and he must know and be able to recognize an F/N, a postulate and full Dianetic EP when these occur.

1. 	Omit ruds of any kind and do NOT attempt a rapid L1C. The TA will just go up out the roof on any type of ruds or list. Simply start the session and go right onto the following steps.

2. 	With the pc on the meter, have him read pages 1-3 of this bulletin (HCOB 4 Jan FIR), through the section entitled “The Remedy.” C/ear up any confusion. Handle any misunderstood words. Help the pc do a simple demo of the theory that: “In” is the earlier beginning or the earlier similar incident of “Out. “

	(This is not to be a clay demo nor complex. Keep it simple, just ensure the pc gets it.)

3. 	Clear EXTERIORIZATION with the pc as THE ACT OF MOVING OUT OF THE BODY WITH OR WITHOUT FULL PERCEPTION. Make certain he’s got it. Demo it, if necessary.

4. 	Check for having been audited after exteriorization. (TA should come down and F/N, cog, VGIs.)

5. 	Rehab (rehabilitate) this condition by getting or counting the number of times exteriorized. You should get F/N, cog, VGIs.

6. 	Assess the following list of Int buttons. (Do NOT clear the buttons first.)

INT BUTTONS

GO IN
WENT IN
PUT IN
INTERIORIZED INTO SOMETHING
WANT TO GO IN
CAN’T GET IN
KICKED OUT OF SPACES
CAN’T GO IN
BEING TRAPPED
FORCED IN
PULLED IN.

If none of the Int buttons read on this assessment, get in Suppress, Invalidate and Misunderstood on the Int button list. (Do not omit this basic rule of assessment. Ref: HCOB 15 Oct 73RA, C/S Series 87RA, NULLING AND F/NING PREPARED LISTS.)

7. 	Then clear and demo ONLY the button that reads.

	If the pc seems disinterested or unhappy with the button that reads, check False.

	CAUTION: The pc may have an MU which caused a particular button to read. Thus ensure the button is not reading on an MU, and if a button has read on an MU then clear it and reassess it. Don’t give the pc a wrong item or even monkey around with a wrong item. The above actions help you ensure getting the CORRECT Int button.

	It is important, in clearing the reading buttons, that the pc understands you will be auditing times he WENT IN or WAS BEING TRAPPED, etc. and NOT “was in” or “was already trapped” or “was stuck in,” etc. You will be auditing the actual times the action of moving in occurred.

	THE ABOVE CLEARING STEPS ARE VITAL, AS THE PC WILL NOT BE ABLE TO DO THE INT RD OVER MISUNDERSTOODS OR ON A MISASSESSED INT BUTTON. TO AUDIT HIM OVER MUs CONSTITUTES A BREACH OF THE AUDITOR’S CODE. ON THE OTHER HAND, DO NOT OVERDO THESE CLEARING ACTIONS, AS YOU ALREADY HAVE A PC ON YOUR HANDS WHO IS IN TROUBLE.

	NOTE: If none of the Int buttons read even when Suppress, Invalidate and Misunderstood are applied, do NOT clear them and do NOT continue the Int Rundown steps.

8. 	When the largest reading button has been cleared per Step 7, take that button and run it R3RA Quad. (TRIPLE IF PC IS ONLY TRIPLE.) Each flow is taken to full Dianetic EP, using the command:

“Locate a time when you (Int button).”

EXAMPLE:

Int button with largest read: FORCED IN

Run:

Fl 1: 	Locate a time when you were forced in. (To full Dn EP)
Fl 2: 	Locate a time when you forced another in. (To full Dn EP)
Fl 3: 	Locate a time when others forced others in. (To full Dn EP)

Fl 0: 	Locate a time when you forced yourself in. (To full Dn EP)

(NOTE:	The Quad command wordings for each of the Int buttons are listed on: HCOB 25 Sep 781, Int RD Series 5, QUAD COMMANDS FOR INT BUTTONS.)

DO NOT EVER RUN A PC ON FLOW ZERO FOR THE FIRST TIME ON INT. A TRIPLE PC CAN BE QUADED UP AFTER INT HANDLING IS COMPLETE, BUT IT IS NEVER DONE ON INT HANDLING OR INT REPAIR.

9. 	When all four flows on the reading button have each been run to full EP, reassess the Int button list per Step 6. If another button now reads, repeat Steps 7 and 8.

	Should you have a persistent F/N after the four flows on the first button have been run, reassess the next day per Step 6 and if any button then reads, repeat Steps 7 and 8. If, on the other hand, you now have an F/Ning Int button list, it is safe to end off the Int Rundown.

10. 	Otherwise, you continue to assess the Int button list per Step 6 and to run any reading item R3RA Quad (or Triple) per Steps 7 and 8, until the entire Int button list is F/Ning on assessment.

	DO NOT OVERRUN THE INT RUNDOWN. See section below on “Vital Data on Int RD End Phenomena.”

	CAUTION: ANY FLOW ON ANY READING BUTTON MUST BE RUN TO EP IN ONE SESSION, AND THE INT RUNDOWN MUST BE COMPLETED IN AS FEW SESSIONS AS POSSIBLE.

11. 	The final step, which is done after the final session, preferably on another later day, is a 2-way comm session on Int/Ext. (Ref: HCOB 30 May 70R, Int RD Series 3, INTERIORIZATION INTENSIVE 2-WAY COMM.)

RUNNING INT WITH R3RA

The R3RA steps and procedure are standard except that they address the subject of “interiorization” (expressed as any one of the buttons on the Int button list).

Note that New Era Dianetics preassessment is not included in the revised Int Rundown, nor is the running of AESPs. (See HCOB 24 Sep 78 II, Int RD Series 13, PREASSESSMENT, AESPs AND INT.)

In running the Int chain (or chains) it is important to run the actual “going in” action which would be near or at the beginning of the incident. Thus, if the pc is running an incident where he is “already in,” ensure you check for an earlier beginning to the incident to pick up the “going in” type of action.

The questions to find an earlier beginning when running R3RA are:

“Is there an earlier beginning to this incident?” or

“Does the one we’re running start earlier?” or

“Does there seem to be an earlier starting point to this incident?”

The earlier similar command when running R3RA is:

“Is there an earlier incident when you (Int button)?”
Each flow must be taken to basic and the full Dianetic EP of: F/N, postulate (postulate off = erasure), and VGIs.

The auditor must have an excellent command of New Era Dianetics tech.

(Reference for New Era Dianetics R3RA commands and procedure is: HCOB 26 Jun 78RA 11, NED Series 6RA, URGENT IMPORTANT, ROUTINE 3RA, ENGRAM RUNNING B Y CHA INS.)

VITAL DATA ON
INT RD END PHENOMENA

Exteriorization is not the EP of the Int Rundown. If it happens that the pc goes exterior during the RD, you end off gently as in any other auditing. But that is not the EP, and you may have to pick him up again later and complete the Int RD or handle it with the End of Endless Int Repair Rundown.

THE EP OF THE INT RUNDOWN IS NO MORE CONCERN OR TROUBLE WITH EXTERIORIZATION OR INTERIORIZATION.

This is generally accomplished by auditing the pc to an F/Ning Int button list.

But there is another phenomenon that can occur while running Int. IT IS VITAL THAT AN AUDITOR DOES NOT MISS THIS SHOULD IT HAPPEN.

It goes like this: You’re auditing along and suddenly some mass discharges, down comes the TA, you suddenly have a floating TA, and that’s it. The pc has hit the EP.

If you proceed past that point you’re in trouble. You DON’T then reassess the Int button list and you DON’T continue running Quad Flows, even if all the flows have not yet been run on one reading button.

You do nothing but take your paws off the meter and gently end the session. If you do otherwise you can mess up a case.

It isn’t exteriorization. Exteriorization could occur at the same time; however we could not care less because exteriorization is not the EP of the process.

But at ANY point at which the above phenomenon occurs on the Int RD—mass moves off, the TA comes crashing down and you can’t keep the needle on the dial because the TA itself is floating—you end off the rundown because you have the EP.

What has happened here is that you’ve blown the stuck flow of “going in.”

Int sends the TA up because the person has plowed deeper into more and more mass and come out of less and less mass. You have been auditing the pc on what has been, for eons, a stuck flow of obsessively going in. At any point in the auditing that stuck flow can suddenly give way. It heaves in the opposite direction, and the stuck flow of “going in” vanishes.

When that happens it’s the end of the process, as that is all you want to accomplish with the Int Rundown.

If you were then to check the Int button list (which you DO NOT DO AT THIS POINT) you would find the Int buttons all F/Ning.

FUTURE AUDITING
When the pc has attained the EP of Int, either on the above phenomenon or by reassessing the Int buttons and running them on the flows to an F/Ning Int button list, one should now be able to audit the pc even after exteriorization.

However, HCOB 7 Mar 75, EXT AND ENDING SESSION would still be applied.

WARNING

The Int Rundown is a major case action and should only be run when the pc is rested and in good physical shape.

THE END OF ENDLESS INT REPAIR

The End of Endless Int Repair Rundown (HCOB 24 Sep 781, Int RD Series 4, URGENT IMPORTANT, THE END OF ENDLESS INT REPAIR RUNDOWN) is the superbly workable new process just developed to handle any needed Int repair.

It resolves any Int troubles that might persist even after a pc has had an Int Rundown done totally standardly.

It does not replace the Int Rundown; rather, it complements it, when necessary, as it runs Int by Recalls. We audit out the Int engrams on the Int Rundown. Then if repair is needed, the End of Endless Int Repair RD can be used to clean it up smoothly with Recalls. It is the answer to overrepair of Int on any pc.

Additionally, it can be used for handling Int repair on Clears, OTs and Dianetic Clears.

The above HCOB, 24 Sep 78 I, fully covers the purpose and use of this valuable new repair rundown.

SUMMARY

If a pc goes exterior on Dianetics or any Scientology auditing you must, as his next session, check the Int buttons for read, and if any read, clear them and do the new, vastly simplified and revised Int Rundown using the above C/S. With this done the pc . . . can go on being audited. And if repair is needed, the End of Endless Int Repair Rundown is the answer.

These new developments and refinements give us a simpler, more thorough tech for resolving Int than we have ever had before.

The way is open to more powerful OTs.

All fundamental discoveries are essentially simple ones.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH:dr 
Copyright © 1971, 1978 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 30 MAY 1970R
REVISED 23 SEPTEMBER 1978
Remimeo
C/Ses	(Revisions in this type style)
Tech/Qual
Auditors	(Ellipsis indicates deletion)
C/ass IV Grad
Checksheet
Interiorization Rundown Series 3

INTERIORIZATION INTENSIVE
2-WAY COMM

The Interiorization Rundown Revised (HCOB of 4 Jan 71R, EXTERIORIZATION AND HIGH TAs THE INTERIORIZATION RUNDOWN REVISED) is ALWAYS followed by a final session with “2-way comm on interiorization-exteriorization.”

If the interiorization auditing has to be repaired, that is done first of course.

BUT AN INTERIORIZATION RUNDOWN IS NEVER COMPLETE UNTIL AN ADDITIONAL LATER SESSION IS GIVEN ON 2-WAY COMM ON INTERIOR EXTERIOR.

A C/S in repairing cases should always look to see if a pc:

1. 	Has exteriorized at some time during auditing.

2. 	If the pc has exteriorized and has not had an Int RD, Int must be checked, per HCOB 4 Jan 71R, and if charged the only C/S that can now be done is the Interiorization Rundown (except on C/ears or above, who get the Recall version).

3. 	If an Int Rundown has been given, then the C/S must check to see if a later session was given on “2-way comm Int-Ext.”

4. 	If this 2-way comm was omitted, or not in a separate session, then “2-way comm on Int-Ext” must be ordered even if there have been several intervening sessions.

THE PROCESS

As an auditor you would give the pc an R-Factor that you are going to go over the subject of interiorization and exteriorization with him.

Get him to tell you how he feels about these, based on the Int button(s) that was assessed and run, and on the subject of Int in general.

The two-way comm session is always taken to F/N.

COG

It is usually the case that the pc did not fully cognite when he had the Int Rundown. His TA may stay high after an Int session. O/R is of little use to get it down. What’s missing is the 2-way comm session. In it the pc usually cognites and things then go right.

The current C/S and auditor error is trying to do everything briefly and all at once. Ordering an Int Rundown and 2-way comm on it in the same session would be part of such an erroneous trend.

The 2-way comm must be another session preferably on another later day.

It is a flagrant C/S error to omit “2-way comm Int-Ext” after an Interiorization Rundown session.

The signal to order a check on interiorization per HCOB 4 Jan 71R is pc went exterior in auditing or has been found to have gone exterior. Auditing will not run well when the pc is audited past or after exteriorizing.

If charged, an Int Rundown must now be ordered.

If unsuccessful it must be repaired.

Successful or repaired, an Int Rundown must be followed by the 2-way comm session.

Two-way comm must be done with exact TRs. The auditor must not Q and A. He must not evaluate (tell the pc what it’s all about).

Two-way comm is a precision process. The pc is kept talking, not by giving him commands. He is kept on the subject of Int-Ext (or the 2-way comm subject), not encouraged to leap about by Q and A.

You cannot consider an Interiorization Rundown complete unless followed by 2way comm.

If the case hasn’t had it following his Int Rundown he must be ordered to it.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH:dz.ka.rd.kjm 
Copyright © 1970, 1978 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
		
HCO BULLETIN OF 24 SEPTEMBER 1978RA
Issue I
Remimeo	REVISED 21 FEBRUARY 1979
Auditors
Cl IV Grad	(All changes are in this type style)
Checksheet	(Ellipses indicate deletions)
Tech/Qual
(NOTE: Some auditors have had trouble with this rundown. It has therefore been extensively revised as per this issue. Before running a pc on this rundown, get the auditor M9ed and M4ed and starrated on the RD. Also make sure that he can operate a meter and do TRs if he has trouble with it in the future. These changes in this RD are considerable and are for immediate use and the earlier rendition of it is not to be used. Out-Int as a case condition along with R3RA audited over and beyond Dianetic Clear are primary reasons for case bogs. The percentage of out-Int may be as much as 75% in any given area. Therefore the Int RD run with NED on non-Clears and the End of Endless Int Repair Rundown are the most important single auditing actions an auditor can do and will produce the most surprising results when the condition is present and is expertly audited.)

Interiorization Rundown Series 4RA

URGENT—IMPORTANT

THE END OF ENDLESS INT REPAIR RUNDOWN

We needed a rundown that would handle what, for some pcs, has been an endless trail of repair of repair of repair of Int.

I have now fully researched and developed the process to handle this and can release it for broad use.

THE END OF ENDLESS INT REPAIR RUNDOWN is just that.

It is the answer to Int troubles.

The rundown consists of running Int by Recall by a very precise and simple method.

At first glance it would not seem possible that such a process would handle the more resistive-appearing Int repair problems which keep coming up on some pcs. This appearance is deceptive, however, as the process is very, very effective. It runs lightly and easily on pcs, but with far-reaching results.

Skillfully handled, it quite miraculously smooths out and resolves Int on both new pcs and those pcs on whom Int repeatedly kicks in.

Of course an Int Rundown has to be run, per HCOB 4 Jan 71R, but when it is later found that the Int Rundown must be repaired then this rundown is used.

It does not replace the original Int Rundown, which has been newly revised with several more buttons and New Era Dianetics commands added (HCOB 4 Jan 71R). Rather, it complements it.

The End of Endless Int Repair RD can be run on Dianetic Clears . . . as it addresses Int with Recalls....

(NOTE: It can NOT be run on any pc or pre-OT in the Non-interference Zone (those between R6 Solo and OT III attest). As the End of Endless Int Repair RD is a major action, not a repair action, it is forbidden to be run on anyone in the Noninterference Zone.

Where a person in the Non-interference Zone has been run on End of Endless Int he should finish up his current Solo level as feasible and get onto his next Solo level.

Anyone who has been run on End of Endless Int while on OT III should be finished up as feasible on Solo OT III and gotten onto NED for OTs.)

In certain isolated cases this process could be used as a preliminary method for handling Int on pcs who are weak or ill and not immediately up to running engrams or secondaries, or it could be used to cool down out-Int on a new pc who exteriorizes on Objectives and has not yet had a Dn C/S-1 or any NED auditing.

But it is not a substitute for the revised Int Rundown and in the above instances you may find the pc may eventually need the revised Int Rundown itself.

The prime purpose and use of the End of Endless Int Repair Rundown is, exactly as its name implies, to handle an endless “repair of repair of repair” of Int. If a regular Int Rundown has been done and Int continues to kick in after fully standard Int correction, the End of Endless Int Repair Rundown is the answer. It effectively resolves persistent Int problems.

WHEN TO RUN AN END OF ENDLESS INT RUNDOWN

When an auditor or C/S encounters out-Int on a case there is a choice of what action to take to handle it. The choice depends on what actions have been taken previously on the case on the subject of Int.

The first thing to determine is whether or not Int is actually out. You cannot audit a person on anything else besides Int, if Int is out. You also cannot run anything which is not charged (reading), as to do so hangs the pc with a wrong/uncharged item. An auditor getting a read on the Int section of the C/S 53 must be careful to verify that this is a valid read, and not a false read or protest read. This is very important as you must not audit a pc on Int if it is not charged, and you must not audit a pc on anything else if Int is out.

You determine whether the pc has already had an Int Rundown, and whether it was correctly done or flubbed. If it was flubbed were Dianetic errors repaired with an L3RF on the Dianetic chains? Has the pc had an Int Rundown Correction List? (These must be determined because the End of Endless Int Rundown is not a substitute for the Int Rundown, and it does not substitute for an Int Rundown Correction List. Dianetic errors must be repaired with an L3RF.) These must be determined by folder study and FES of the Int Rundown and any repairs of Int Rundown.

If the pc has had an Int Rundown and it has been flubbed, you would do an Int Rundown Correction List and handle all of the various actions necessary, providing this is within the normal time span of the rundown. Don’t try this months or years later. The End of Endless Int Rundown will not repair flagrant Dianetic errors. If the pc is having or was recently given an Int Rundown which has bogged or failed, then an Int Rundown Correction List including repair of any Dianetic errors is to be done. If the pc still has out-Int despite having had the Int Rundown and it has been repaired and all that is usual and ordinary has been done, then you would do the End of Endless Int Rundown.

You must determine whether the pc is a Dianetic Clear, or whether he has become one somewhere along the line. If the pc has had Dianetic Clear rehabbed since the original Int RD, check the dates to determine whether the pc was run on the Int RD by R3R or R3RA when he was a Dianetic Clear. If so this can be repaired by indicating to the pc that he was run on the Int RD on R3R or R3RA after Dianetic C/ear. If these Int Dianetic chains are now reading, repair them by assessing an L3RF and indicating. (Do not get into running or continuing any R3R or R3RA on a Dianetic Clear.) If the person is a Dianetic Clear and Int is still out for some peculiar reason best known to Man or beast, the only choice we have is the End of Endless Int Rundown.

The way to determine whether Int is out is normally by assessment of the C/S 53 buttons, and it is on this prepared list that out-Int is most often detected. You don’t flatten the button, or try to handle the button that was found on the C/S 53. This is the one exception on the C/S 53 whereby you do not just F/N it on the C/S 53 and go on. We have to examine the condition of the person on the subject of Int as above, to determine which way to go. Therefore you stop right there with a C/S 53, being careful to verify the fact that you actually have a read on Int, and not a false read or protest read. (And remember that some pcs, especially when Int has been run or repaired when it wasn’t charged, can get so protesty on the subject that Int will now give a false read whenever it is mentioned due to protest. An auditor’s TRs, metering and obnosis of the pc and whether the pc is in session or not have to be bad for this to occur, or for the auditor to now fail to determine whether it is a valid or false read on Int.) Having determined that you do have a valid read on Int, you would not proceed with the C/S 53, but end off the session.

INT RUNDOWN TABLE

The following table tells the auditor and C/S which way to go when handling out-Int. Once filled out this table should be kept with the pc Folder Summary in front inside of the pc folder beneath the pgm. And the table should be updated.

	Yes       No

A.	IS THE READ ON INT A VALID READ?	____  ____

	Is there any evidence of the pc having been run on Int due to a false or protest read?	____  ____

	Any evidence of the read being caused by a Mis-U word?	____  ____

	(If ‘yes’ on above get ‘False read?’ and ‘Protest?’ cleaned up or the Mis-U cleared and recheck the buttons on Section A of C/S 53 to find out if Int is charged.)

B. 	HAS THE PC HAD A FULL INT RUNDOWN?	____  ____

	(If ‘no’ or incomplete, it would have to be repaired and completed. NOTE: The Int RD would NOT be run on a Dianetic Clear, Clear or OT as they are not to be run on Dianetics in any form.)

C. 	HAS THE PC HAD AN INT RUNDOWN CORRECTION LIST?	____  ____

	(If not, and there is any evidence of errors or lack of expected result, this should be done before continuing the Int RD or doing End of Endless Int Rundown. And if the pc has had several Int Rundown Correction Lists, realize that either the auditor can’t make a list read, or is only getting false reads.)

D. 	HAVE ANY R3R OR R3RA DIANETIC ERRORS ON THE INT RUNDOWN BEEN CORRECTED WITH AN L3RF?	____  ____	

	(If not, get these repaired, as continuing the RD, or doing End of Endless Int Rundown won’t solve R3R or R3RA errors.)

E.	IS THE PC A DIANETIC CLEAR OR ABOVE?	____  ____	

	Was the pc a Dianetic Clear when the Int RD was run on him by R3R or R3RA ?	____  ____		

(If ‘yes’ to either above, you must not run any Dianetics but if Int is still out after repairing any errors the End of Endless Int Rundown can be done on a Dianetic Clear. It can NOT be done between R6 Solo and OT III attest.

If the pc was run on Dianetics on the Int RD after Dn C/ear, the first action is to indicate the error of running Dianetics after Clear, and then repair any reading Dianetic Int chain with an L3RF, taking care to handle the reading lines by indication only, and not get into any running of Dianetics. This action alone will often cure any Int trouble on a Dn Clear, but if Int is still reading you can now handle it with the End of Endless Int Rundown.)

THE END OF ENDLESS INT RUNDOWN
PROCEDURE

Having determined that you are going to do the End of Endless Int Rundown from the table above, you proceed as follows:

1. 	The auditor has the pc demonstrate the various flows. Remember that this must not be arduous because it is actually almost auditing to do this and the person’s Int is out. If the pc is a Triple pc, have him demonstrate Flows 1, 2, 3. If the pc is a Quad pc, have him demonstrate Flows 1, 2, 3, 0.

	(Do not engage in flying ruds, Word Clearing, Touch Assists, Havingness or any other auditing over out-Int.)

2. 	Assess the End of Endless Int Rundown buttons. Take the largest read.

3. 	You then proceed to run this button with the End of Endless Int Rundown. This is done by assessing the flows. Take the flow that reads the largest and using the Recall Process that applies to that flow, run it until an F/N is achieved.

4. 	Then reassess all flows. You’ll find the one you ran will be F/Ning. Another flow will be reading. Run the best reading flow by the Recall Process until it F/Ns. You repeat this procedure until all flows F/N.

	If during the period you are running these flows on that button, the pc has a large cog, F/N, GIs, remember that you may have blown all flows. At that moment without interrupting the pc’s cognition you realize that you are finished with assessing the flows of this button. For caution’s sake, you check the button to see if it now reads. Of course it will F/N.

5. 	You now reassess the whole End of Endless Int Rundown button list. The whole list might F/N at this point. On the other hand it might not. If you get a read on this assessment, you treat it exactly the same as you did priorly, (steps 3, 4, 5). You keep this up until you get an F/Ning assessment of the Int buttons.
6. 	You then wait a week and reassess the Int buttons list again. If you get a read, check for false read, check for protest. Make sure it is a valid read that you have and if it is, you treat that button exactly the same as above and proceed (per steps 3, 4, 5).

	When you get an F/Ning assessment of the Int buttons after the one week wait, the End of Endless Int Rundown is complete, and the pc is sent to declare.

THE  INT BUTTONS

GO IN

WENT IN

PUT IN

INTERIORIZED INTO SOMETHING

WANT TO GO IN

CAN’T GET IN

KICKED OUT OF SPACES

CAN’T GO IN

BEING TRAPPED

FORCED IN

PULLED IN

PUSHED IN

. . . .

EXAMPLE:

Int button assessed: PUT IN

Assess the four flows with the wordings for that button but without using the word “Recall”:

F1: . . . you were put in something    x
F2: . . . you put another in something   
F3: . . . others put others in something    x
F0: . . . you put yourself in something    sf

Flow 2 reads best, so run Flow 2 to F/N, using the entire Recall command (i.e. “Recall a time when you put another in something”). Reassess all four flows, as above, using the same Int button....
. . . . 

Examples of the running commands for “PUT IN” would be:

If F1 reads: “Recall a time when you were put in something.” (to F/N.)

If F2 reads: “Recall a time when you put another in something.” (to F/N.)

If F3 reads: “Recall a time when others put others in something.” (to F/N.)

If F0 reads: “Recall a time when you put yourself in something.” (to F/N.)

CAUTIONS AND C/S TIPS

The only time you check the button again while assessing flows is when the pc has had a cog, F/N, GIs, at which time you must suspect that the whole button has blown. This by the way happens in Int Rundowns and is the commonest cause of overrun Int.

There is another way of addressing this if the pc isn’t getting cognitions to amount to anything. When you get all flows on a button F/Ning, you can end off the session and check the next day to see if the flows are still F/Ning. It some times happens where you have a not very responsive pc, that it takes several days of assessment of the flows which F/Ned yesterday to carry the F/N through a whole day. These flows often read again the next day. This is because you are running Recall Processes, and Recall Processes are simply key-outs. Therefore you are getting something keying in and keying out and keying in and keying out. This is eventually overcome. Where you are doing this day-to-day handling of the same button, it would be vital to check the button for read before you assessed the flows on it the next day.

The one-week wait is a compromise for the 3 to 10 day key-out period; you can’t say wait for 3 to 10 days, so it is set at one week. During the rundown there may have been a momentary stir-up of some kind, such as a tiny ripple on an auditor’s TRs rendition, or a badly mishandled origin that could cause an ARC break needle, or something like this could happen, so if you wait a week such trouble will key out, before you assess the buttons list again. Or you may have been riding a win, a persistent F/N on one button, when the whole subject of Int is not handled, and you will get environmental restimulation. Remember you are only handling Recalls, and a little more Recalls run will probably blow it for good. So you are waiting a week to see if the environment keys him in again. You reassess a week later and if the buttons are all clean, fine. But if something reads on the week later assessment that must mean an engram or something is pretty close to the surface still. You then handle it again and this time the little point that was missed will turn up and that will be the end of that. You handle the buttons to F/Ning assessment and then that is the end of that. The End of Endless Int Repair. (There is no second wait for another week.)

Now of course if during the one-week wait the pc gets keyed-in again or originates or by reason of BIs or manifestation that Int is still out, you would not robotically wait out the whole week before giving the next session, as you now know he is not on a persistent F/N, and you know there is more to handle.

And on the reassessment of the buttons after the week wait, the auditor must again be sure that it is a valid read on Int and not a false or protest read before he launches off into running anything again. False reads on the assessment, protest reads, or the pc suffering from something else entirely besides out-Int can cause a false read on assessment of the Int buttons. Hence the necessity to be sure you have a valid read before you proceed. And if the pc is caved in or BIs about it there is a little checklist that tells a C/S what to do about that too.

The things that could go wrong are rather simple and are few in number. These are:

a) 	Int wasn’t out in the first place,

b) 	The pc has been run on false reads, 

c) 	The pc was suffering from something else entirely other than out-Int, 

d) 	The auditor’s TRs are bad, or broke the Auditor’s Code,

e) 	The auditor’s metering was bad, giving wrong assessments,

f) 	The auditor overran F/Ns, or reran a flow that just F/Ned invalidating the F/N just gotten,

g) 	Pc had a Mis-U on the word ‘Recall’ and was trying to run through engrams on the Recall Process,

h) 	The pc had a major cog on the subject of Int, blowing the whole thing and the auditor went on, overrunning the Int Rundown or End of Endless Int Rundown,

i) 	Pc was audited on some other action other than Int while Int was out—such as rudiments, Touch Assists, Word Clearing or any other auditing or assist action, including illegal 2-way comms about his case or auditing, coffee shop or eval or inval by his ‘friends’ or others between sessions,

j) 	Errors on the original Int RD weren’t repaired before starting the End of Endless Int Rundown.

If a C/S can’t tell by folder inspection which of these it is he can have the pc interviewed by a D of P to find out, or even get the above assessed to find out which it is.

VITAL DATA ON
INT RD END PHENOMENA

Exteriorization is not the EP of the Int Rundown. If it happens that the pc goes exterior during the RD, you end off gently as in any other auditing. But that is not the EP, and you may have to pick him up again later and complete the Int RD or handle it with the End of Endless Int Repair Rundown.

THE EP OF THE INT RUNDOWN IS NO MORE CONCERN OR TROUBLE WITH EXTERIORIZATION OR INTERIORIZATION.

This is generally accomplished by auditing the pc to an F/Ning Int button list.

But there is another phenomenon that can occur while running Int. IT IS VITAL THAT AN AUDITOR DOES NOT MISS THIS SHOULD IT HAPPEN.

It goes like this: You’re auditing along and suddenly some mass discharges, down comes the TA, you suddenly have a floating TA, and that’s it. The pc has hit the EP.

If you proceed past that point you’re in trouble. You DON’T then reassess the Int button list and you DON’T continue running Quad Flows, even if all the flows have not yet been run on one reading button.

You do nothing but take your paws off the meter and gently end the session. If you do otherwise you can mess up a case.

It isn’t exteriorization. Exteriorization could occur at the same time; however we could not care less because exteriorization is not the EP of the process.

But at ANY point at which the above phenomenon occurs on the Int RD—mass moves off, the TA comes crashing down and you can’t keep the needle on the dial because the TA itself is floating—you end off the rundown because you have the EP.

What has happened here is that you’ve blown the stuck flow of “going in.”

Int sends the TA up because the person has plowed deeper into more and more mass and come out of less and less mass. You have been auditing the pc on what has been, for eons, a stuck flow of obsessively going in. At any point in the auditing that stuck flow can suddenly give way. It heaves in the opposite direction, and the stuck flow of “going in” vanishes.

When that happens it’s the end of the process, as that is all you want to accomplish with the Int Rundown.

If you were then to check the Int button list (which you DO NOT DO AT THIS POINT) you would find the Int buttons all F/Ning.

REPAIRING REPAIR

Over the years Int auditing has tended to be flubby. Int repair has been far too frequent and even repetitive on some pcs. Some auditors and C/Ses have decided Int RDs were “delicate” or “difficult” or very special. Well, Int is special and sometimes delicate, but it’s not difficult.

If an auditor is going to audit the Int Rundown successfully he must be skilled at metering, he must be flubless on R3RA and the commands of the process, and understand the theory of Int. He must know what an F/N is and what a Dianetic EP is and be able to recognize these when they occur.

Much of the Int repair needed stems from errors made by auditors (or C/Ses): running Int when it was not needed, running it with the idea it would exteriorize the pc, auditing the RD over misunderstoods, overrunning the RD. These are all violations of the Auditor’s Code, many of them then further complicated by Dianetic errors in running or repairing Int.

There is another factor regarding the original Int Rundown which must not be overlooked. Although it comes under the heading of “overrunning the Int Rundown,” it is sometimes neither seen nor understood. In doing the original Int Rundown it can occur that it completes before all flows are run.

EXAMPLE: The auditor runs Flow I on engrams on the revised Int RD, then Flow 2, and suddenly gets a wide, persistent F/N and a dramatic resurge of the pc. The TA goes into lower range and the pc is bright and smiling. Then the auditor, if he’s an idiot, proceeds to robotically run Flow 3 and Flow 0. The TA goes back up, the pc’s chronic headache turns back on and the pc is set up for an endless repair of Int.

I have seen this happen several times. The Int Rundown finished itself and nobody noticed except the pc. This is probably the most flagrant cause of Int repair and is peculiar to this rundown.

The way to handle this is to rehab the point of completion as best you can and then run the recall version as given above and you will find that it usually comes out straight. The best way to handle, of course, is to do it right in the first place.

But if, added to any or all of the above, you get an Int Correction List misassessed so that what’s really wrong is missed and a falsely reading item taken up, you wind up with a mess.

There is no excuse for overrunning the rundown, for Auditor’s Code breaks, poor metering or flubby Dianetic auditing.

On the other hand, interiorization, like any other condition connected with engrams, may have many chains connected with it. Thus, the process of day-to-day living can restimulate those chains and throw Int out.

A C/S, faced with the possibility of any or all of the above being wrong could find himself staring into a maze. And he could err and order correction list after correction list, ad infinitum.

The rule is:

THE CORRECT ACTION TO TAKE FIRST, IF SOMEONE IS HAVING TROUBLE WITH INT, IS TO ALWAYS GET A THOROUGH FES DONE ON THE ORIGINAL INT RD ITSELF AND ANY INT REPAIRS THAT HAVE BEEN DONE—BEFORE ANOTHER CORRECTION LIST IS ORDERED.

Very often the answer to the puzzle then leaps out.

Get the errors corrected correctly. Any misassessed lists, misrun Dianetic chains, code breaks—get it all cleaned up by an auditor who can read a meter and run and repair Dianetics flublessly. Don’t let any auditor who isn’t flubless on these points near an Int pc.

With the errors truly and standardly handled and out of the way, if Int then continues to kick in, it’s not another Int RD or another Int Correction List, it’s the END OF ENDLESS INT REPAIR RUNDOWN you use.

Run it to its EP and that will be the end of the trail of endless Int repair.

If the C/S is in doubt about all this and gets into a mess trying to repair chains, he can cut directly onto this repair rundown as above with simply the Recall Processes, and he will get someplace.

AFTER AN INT RD OR END OF ENDLESS INT RUNDOWN HAS BEEN COMPLETED ON A CASE AND DECLARED, THE NEXT ACTION MUST BE A C/S 53, ASSESSED AND HANDLED TO F/NING LIST. THIS MUST BE DONE AS THE NEXT ACTION AND MAY NOT BE LEFT NOT DONE. (The reason for this is that there are other things that can be wrong with a case, all of which are covered on the C/S 53, and these too must be handled.)

There is no reason now for any pc (or C/S) to continue to be plagued with Int troubles .

We have here a rundown which is easily and simply done, which can be run on a Dianetic C/ear, or a pre-OT who is NOT on OT III or ANYWHERE between R6 Solo and OT III attest, on fragile pcs or weak or ill pcs, and is a rescue from overrepair.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

Revision as assisted by 
LRH Tech Comps

LRH:LRHTC:dr.clb.jk 
Copyright © 1978, 1979 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 6 DECEMBER 1978
C/Ses
Tech/Qual
Class IV Grad
REVIVIFICATION

Revivification is the bringing back to life of an engram in which a preclear is stuck. The engram or some portion thereof is being acted out in present time by the preclear It is called a revivification because the engram is suddenly more real to the preclear than present time has ever been. He relives that moment briefly. He does not merely recall or remember it.

This is not the same thing as the “returning” to an incident or engram that is employed in Dianetic auditing. Return is the method of retaining the body and the awareness of the subject in present time while he is told to go back to a certain incident. Revivification is the reliving of an incident or a portion of it as if it were happening now.

This phenomenon can occur in a pc during the End of Endless Int Repair Rundown. (Ref: HCOB 24 Sep 78R, Iss 1, Int RD Series 4R, THE END OF ENDLESS INT REPAIR RUNDOWN.)

The pc, being run on Recalls on Int, will often begin by recalling locks but these can trigger into full play an engram in which he may be stuck and the pc may go into a revivification of it. He will actually be answering and acting from the point or points down the track where he has been stuck.

Should this happen the auditor simply continues to run the process and get the pc through it. As the pc revivifies he blows through these stuck points on his track and comes out of them, newly, and is now truly in present time.

As revivification is apt to occur on the End of Endless Int Repair, auditors must understand and be able to recognize the phenomena and handle it routinely with excellent TRs when it does.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH:cib
Copyright © 1978
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 25 SEPTEMBER 1978
Issue I
Remimeo
HGC Auditors
Scn Chkshts
Cl VIII
Cl IV Grad
Interiorization Rundown Series 5

QUAD COMMANDS FOR INT BUTTONS

	(Cancels BTB 30 Dec 71 	IMPORTANT INTERIORIZATION
		RUNDOWN COMMANDS)

	Ref: HCOB 4 Jan 71R	Int RD Series 2
		EXTERIORIZATION AND HIGH TA,
		THE INTERIORIZATION RUNDOWN
		REVISED
	HCOB 24 Sep 78 I	Int RD Series 4
		URGENT IMPORTANT, THE END OF
		ENDLESS INT REPAIR RUNDOWN

NOTE: IN USING THESE COMMANDS (R3RA AND RECALLS) DO NOT EVER RUN A PC ON FLOW ZERO FOR THE FIRST TIME ON INT. HANDLING INT BY ANY METHOD IS NOT THE TIME TO INTRODUCE A FLOW ZERO ON A PC. A TRIPLE PC CAN BE QUADED UP AFTER INT HANDLING IS COMPLETE, BUT IT IS NEVER DONE ON INT HANDLING OR INT REPAIR.

INTERIORIZATION RUNDOWN REVISED

The following are the R3RA Quad Flows commands for each of the Int buttons on the Interiorization Rundown Revised.

1. 	GO IN/WENT IN:

F1: 	Locate a time when you went in.

F2: 	Locate a time when you caused another to go in.

F3: 	Locate a time when others caused others to go in.

F0: 	Locate a time when you caused yourself to go in.

2. 	PUT IN:

F1: 	Locate a time when you were put in something.
F2: 	Locate a time when you put another in something.
F3: 	Locate a time when others put others in something.
F0: 	Locate a time when you put yourself in something.
3. 	INTERIORIZED INTO SOMETHING:

F1: 	Locate a time when you interiorized into something.

F2: 	Locate a time when you interiorized another into something.

F3: 	Locate a time when others interiorized others into something.

F0: 	Locate a time when you interiorized yourself into something.

4. 	WANT TO GO IN:

F1: 	Locate a time when you wanted to go into something.

F2: 	Locate a time when you caused another to want to go into something
F3: 	Locate a time when others caused others to want to go into something
F0: 	Locate a time when you caused yourself to want to go into something

5. 	CAN’T GET IN:

F1: 	Locate a time when you couldn’t get in.

F2: 	Locate a time when you caused another to be unable to get in.

F3: 	Locate a time when others caused others to be unable to get in.

F0: 	Locate a time when you caused yourself to be unable to get in.

6. 	KICKED OUT OF SPACES:

F1: 	Locate a time when you were kicked out of spaces.

F2: 	Locate a time when you kicked another out of spaces.

F3: 	Locate a time when others kicked others out of spaces.

F0: 	Locate a time when you caused yourself to be kicked out of spaces.

7. 	CAN’T GO IN:

F1: 	Locate a time when you couldn’t go in.

F2: 	Locate a time when you caused another to be unable to go in.

F3: 	Locate a time when others caused others to be unable to go in.

F0: 	Locate a time when you caused yourself to be unable to go in.

8. 	BEING TRAPPED:

F1: 	Locate a time when you were being trapped.

F2: 	Locate a time when you were trapping another.

F3: 	Locate a time when others were trapping others.

F0: 	Locate a time when you were trapping yourself.

9. 	FORCED IN:

F1: 	Locate a time when you were forced in.

F2: 	Locate a time when you forced another in.

F3: 	Locate a time when others forced others in.

F0: 	Locate a time when you forced yourself in.

10. 	PULLED IN:

F1: 	Locate a time when you were pulled in.

F2: 	Locate a time when you pulled another in.

F3: 	Locate a time when others pulled others in.

F0: 	Locate a time when you pulled yourself in.

Each flow must be taken to the basic and the full New Era Dianetic EP: F/N, postulate off (postulate off = erasure) and VGIs. (Ref: HCOB 26 Jun 78RA II, New Era Dianetics Series 6RA, ROUTINE 3RA, ENGRAM RUNNING BY CHAINS.)

THE END OF ENDLESS INT REPAIR RUNDOWN

The following are the Recall Quad Flows commands for each of the Int buttons on the End of Endless Int Repair Rundown.

1. 	GO IN/WENT IN:

RF 1: 	Recall a time when you went in.

RF 2: 	Recall a time when you caused another to go in.

RF 3: 	Recall a time when others caused others to go in.

RF 0: 	Recall a time when you caused yourself to go in.

2. 	PUT IN:

RF 1: 	Recall a time when you were put in something.

RF 2: 	Recall a time when you put another in something.

RF 3: 	Recall a time when others put others in something.

RF 0: 	Recall a time when you put yourself in something.

3. 	INTERIORIZED INTO SOMETHING:

RF 1: 	Recall a time when you interiorized into something.

RF 2: 	Recall a time when you interiorized another into something.

RF 3: 	Recall a time when others interiorized others into something.

RF 0: 	Recall a time when you interiorized yourself into something.

4. 	WANT TO GO IN:

RF 1: 	Recall a time when you wanted to go into something.

RF 2: 	Recall a time when you caused another to want to go into something.

RF 3: 	Recall a time when others caused others to want to go into something

RF 0: 	Recall a time when you caused yourself to want to go into something.

5. 	CAN’T GET IN:

RF 1: 	Recall a time when you couldn’t get in.

RF 2: 	Recall a time when you caused another to be unable to get in.

RF 3: 	Recall a time when others caused others to be unable to get in.

RF 0: 	Recall a time when you caused yourself to be unable to get in.

6. 	KICKED OUT OF SPACES:

RF 1: 	Recall a time when you were kicked out of spaces.

RF 2: 	Recall a time when you kicked another out of spaces.

RF 3: 	Recall a time when others kicked others out of spaces.

RF 0: 	Recall a time when you caused yourself to be kicked out of spaces.

7. 	CAN’T GO IN:

RF 1: 	Recall a time when you couldn’t go in.

RF 2: 	Recall a time when you caused another to be unable to go in.

RF 3: 	Recall a time when others caused others to be unable to go in.

RF 0: 	Recall a time when you caused yourself to be unable to go in.

8. 	BEING TRAPPED:

RF 1: 	Recall a time when you were being trapped.

RF 2: 	Recall a time when you were trapping another.

RF 3: 	Recall a time when others were trapping others.

RF 0: 	Recall a time when you were trapping yourself.

9. 	FORCED IN:

RF 1: 	Recall a time when you were forced in.

RF 2: 	Recall a time when you forced another in.

RF 3: 	Recall a time when others forced others in.

RF 0: 	Recall a time when you forced yourself in.

10. 	PULLED IN:

RF 1: 	Recall a time when you were pulled in.

RF 2: 	Recall a time when you pulled another in.

RF 3: 	Recall a time when others pulled others in.

RF 0: 	Recall a time when you pulled yourself in.

Each Recall Flow must be taken to F/N, VGIs.

(Ref: HCOB 24 Sep 78 I, Int RD Series 4, URGENT IMPORTANT, THE END OF ENDLESS INT REPAIR RUNDOWN.)

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH:dr 
Copyright © 1978 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
		
HCO BULLETIN OF 11 APRIL 1970R
Remimeo	REVISED 23 SEPTEMBER 1978
Class IV
Grad	(Revisions in this type style)
C/Ses	
Tech Secs	(Ellipsis indicates deletion)
Qual Secs	
Interiorization Rundown Series 6

AUDITING PAST EXTERIOR

	(Ref:	HCOB 4 Jan 71R	Int RD Series 2, EXTERIOR
			IZATION AND HIGH TA, THE
			INTERIORIZATION RUNDOWN
			REVISED
		HCOB 24 Sep 78 I	Int RD Series 4, URGENT
			IMPORTANT, THE END OF END
			LESS INT REPAIR RUNDOWN
		HCOB 26 Jun 78RA	New Era Dianetics Series
		Issue II	6RA, URGENT IMPORTANT,
			ROUTINE 3RA ENGRAM RUNNING
			BY CHAINS
		HCOB 7 Mar 75	EXT AND ENDING SESSION.)

On Flag where we do a lot of auditing on pcs when I took over C/Sing after 8 months off C/S lines, I found a very high percentage of cases had been audited past exterior. It was a very high percentage.

Many of these pcs (most of them VAs or on OT levels) had various symptoms:

Headaches Body aches and pains Effort Pressures from environment.

The common denominator was “audited over exterior.”

The main symptom of this was high TA at session start or TA up at Examiner after F/Ns, cog, VGIs at session end. Not all however suffered from high TA but all who had high TA after lots of auditing had been audited past exterior.

The first (1970) version of the above-referenced HCOB (now HCOB 4 Jan 71R) re exteriorization and interiorization was tested and written as the breakthrough which permits auditing after exteriorization and going on up the grades.

The check even after this showed such a high percent of cases had been audited past exterior on Dianetics, Scn, Power, Clearing or OT grades that I wish to bring the point home emphatically to C/Ses that it is of major importance to handle this situation by checking for it and running interiorization.

NOTE: Per HCOB 12 Sep 78, URGENT IMPORTANT, DIANETICS FORBIDDEN ON CLEARS AND OTs, Clears and OTs and Dianetic Clears would not now be audited on the routine Interiorization RD (Int RD Series 2), as they are not to be run on Dianetics. Dianetic Clears, Clears and above may be audited on the End of Endless Int Repair RD, which runs Int by Recall. (Ref: HCOB 24 Sep 78, Issue I, Int RD Series 4, URGENT IMPORTANT, THE END OF ENDLESS INT REPAIR RD.) A C/ear or OT who then has any further unresolving Int problems should, as soon as possible, be handled at an AO.

The standard C/S for any other pc who has exteriorized in auditing, has high TA, headaches, body aches, heavy pressures or discomfort (any of these), is to order a check on interiorization, exactly per the steps given on HCOB 4 Jan 71R, EXTERIORIZATION AND HIGH TA, THE INTERIORIZATION RUNDOWN REVISED. Then, if Int is found to be charged, the person is given the Int Rundown.

When the Int Rundown steps are completed, in a separate session some time within the next few days, this C/S must be done:

1. 	Two-way comm on interiorization and exteriorization.

This pushes the cognition further. The pc may not have added it all up yet. Don’t evaluate. Just question and listen with no Q and A.

Pcs or pre-OTs can go up to higher grades after exteriorization if interiorization is run. This is even true of Dianetic Clears. For Clears, OTs and Dianetic Clears, however, Int can only be run using the End of Endless Int Repair RD as referenced above.

We are far more successful in early auditing (such as Dianetics and lower grades) than we think!

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH:nt.ei.rd.kjm 
Copyright © 1970, 1978 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
		
HCO BULLETIN OF 6 MAY 1970R
REVISED 24 SEPTEMBER 1978
Remimeo
Class IV Grad	(Revisions in this type style)
Checksheets
Tech/Qual	(Ellipsis indicates deletion)
All Auditors
C/Ses	
Interiorization Rundown Series 7

BLOWS
AUDITING PAST EXTERIOR

	(Ref:	HCOB 4 Jan 71R	Int RD Series 2, EXTERIOR
			IZATION AND HIGH TA, THE
			INTERIORIZATION RUNDOWN REVISED
		HCOB 24 Sep 78 I	Int RD Series 4, URGENT
			IMPORTANT, END OF ENDLESS
			INT REPAIR RD
		HCOB 7 Mar 75	EXT AND ENDING SESSION)

I have found a major cause of blows from classes, orgs and Scientology.

Overts are of course a primary cause but many have overts and don’t blow, so why do such people blow?

A case audited past exterior, particularly if it is not acked, tends to get stuck on exteriorizing. This can (but doesn’t always by any means) cause the person to take himself away!

Three recent “blows” all fell in this category. One who was trying to blow, when audited on interiorization, changed his mind.

An amazing number of pcs go exterior on modern auditing. Modern processes, Dianetics and Scientology are very fast.

Some haven’t even realized it, didn’t know what it was.

When they go exterior and you keep on auditing them without running interiorization as per HCOB 4 Jan 71R, Int RD Series 2, EXTERIORIZATION AND HIGH TA, THE INTERIORIZATION RUNDOWN REVISED, they become stronger as thetans while being reinteriorized and they get odd somatics, particularly in the head.

Uncomfortable they want OUT. Trying and failing to get out (since interiorization has not been run) in desperation they leave an org or class, body and all, without being exterior as a thetan.

If you rehab exterior and run an Interiorization Rundown the dramatization ceases.

The excuses such “blows” give you would fill a large book. Yet it is only that they are seeking to exteriorize, can’t, so they “exteriorize” by leaving, body and all.

The Interiorization Rundown is given in HCOB 4 Jan 71R.

For Clears, OTs and Dianetic Clears, the handling is the End of Endless Int Repair Rundown. (HCOB 24 Sep 78, Issue I.)

A person couldn’t be audited past exterior, you know.

But if given an Interiorization Rundown he or she can be.

When they have been audited past exterior without an Interiorization Rundown you will have trouble with the case, the TA and with blows. So use the interiorization tech.

L. RON HUBBARD 
Founder 

LRH:nt.ei.rd.kjm 
Copyright © 1970, 1978 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 20 AUGUST 1970R
REVISED 23 SEPTEMBER 1978
Remimeo
Chksht	(Title has been changed from
C/S Chkshts	Exteriorization RD Musts to
CIV Grad	Interiorization Rundown Musts)
Chkshts
Tech/Qual	(Revisions in this type style)

(Ellipses indicate deletions)

Interiorization Rundown Series 8

INTERORIZATION  RUNDOWN MUSTS

(Reference: HCOB 4 Jan R, Int RD Series 2
EXT AND HIGH TA, THE INT RD REVISED)

An Interiorization Rundown must be:

1. 	COMPLETED IN AS FEW SESSIONS AS POSSIBLE, WITH EACH SUCCEEDING SESSION GIVEN ON THE NEXT CONSECUTIVE DAY.

2. 	RUN SO AS TO COMPLETE ANY FLOW ON ANY READING BUTTON IN ONE SESSION. (This means you do not leave a chain half run.)

3. 	RUN WITHOUT FLUBS.

4. 	FOLLOWED BY A FINAL SESSION OF 2-WAY COMM RUN TO F/N, COG, VGIs.

COMPLETING THE RUNDOWN ON AN INTENSIVE BASIS

Originally, when only “went in” and “go in” were assessed on the Int Rundown, the rule was that the entire rundown was to be given in one session.

The reason for this was that there is a frequent chance of ruds going out between sessions and of course they cannot be put in until the Int Rundown is complete as it’s “auditing a pc past exterior.”

This is still true.

However, with the full array of Int buttons now to be assessed and any reading button run on Quad or Triple Flows, and with re-assessment of the Int buttons, the one session rule may not be workable without “quickie-ing” the rundown, which must not be done.

Thus, allowance must be made for sufficient time to get the rundown done fully while still completing it as rapidly as possible, to safeguard against out-ruds situations cropping up before it is complete.

The safest way to accomplish this is to ensure that the Int Rundown:
1. 	Is completed in as few sessions as possible.

2. 	After the first session each succeeding session is given on the next consecutive day.

3. 	Plenty of time (2 to 5 hours) must be allowed for each daily session.

4. 	The auditor must make sure the pc DOES have the necessary time for this before starting the rundown.

5. 	Any one flow on any reading Int button MUST be completed in one session. (You do not end a session with a chain only half or partially run.)

6. 	There are no session breaks taken. (Unless pc has a physical PTP, in which case he can be given a MINIMAL break to handle it and return right back to session.)

FLUBLESS

Auditors who have occasional flubs—Dn failures to flatten chains or run them to chopped EP instead of a correct F/N postulate off and VGIs at basic HAVE NO BUSINESS RUNNING INT RUNDOWNS.

Flubs in any event are just corny.

They are particularly messy when they occur in the INT RUNDOWN.

The Int  Rundown is auditing by the book!

(Ref:	HCOB 4 Jan 71R 	Int RD Series 2 EXTERIORIZATION & HIGH TA, 
		THE INT RD REVISED
	HCOB 26 Jun 78RA NED Series 6RA URGENT IMPORTANT 
		ROUTINE 3RA, ENGRAM RUNNING BY CHAINS
	HCOB 16 Sep 78 	POSTULATE OFF EQUALS ERASURE)

Flubs mar any auditing result. They make a real mess on an Int Rundown as review auditing over an exteriorization if the rundown is not complete, is difficult and results in high TA.

Yet one franchise invalidated the pc’s cog, made the pc do it all in clay, left chains incomplete and took a week over it! And then wondered why the pc was unhappy!

NO FLUBS!

FOLLOW WITH 2-WAY COMM

A day or two or a week after the Int Rundown (not less than a day nor more than a week), an Int Rundown MUST BE FOLLOWED BY A TWO-WAY COMM SESSION.

The reason for this is that there is a cognition delay on almost all cases. The 2way comm blows off locks, etc. and the pc usually gets a big cog and never afterwards worries about exteriorization.

If the Int Rundown is not done in DAILY sessions, flubbed, not followed by 2-way comm in a later session, the pc can get hung up on the subject.

The auditor doing 2-way comm must have experience and know-how on 2-way comm. (See HCOB 21 April 70, “2-WAY COMM C/Ses,” HCOB 3 July ‘70, “C/Sing 2-WAY COMM,” BTB 10 July ‘70, “2-WAY COMM—A CLASS III ACTION.”)
All  2-way comm sessions go to end phenomena of an F/N.

It is often  found the subject of interiorization-exteriorization is still charged. But it should be checked for read as in all items and subjects used in auditing. The rule is you don’t audit things that don’t read. Suppress and Inval buttons can be put in to get a read. If you audit things that don’t read, the TA is liable to go up.

A nicely done 2-way comm on interiorization and exteriorization blows the pc to present time and cleans him up nicely.

The Interiorization Rundown is to be done when it is found the pc has been audited past exterior, providing of course one of the Int buttons reads on checking. If reading, the RD HAS to be done before review auditing, ruds or anything else. So it’s dicey—a delicate proposition.

An . . . Interiorization . . . Rundown is about the hottest thing that’s come along for some time. It solves, for instance, the total goal of Buddhism. It is the key to immortality. It’s pure theta gold.

So respect it by running by the book, exactly, perfectly and to a total win.

L. RON HUBBARD 
Founder

LRH:rr.rd.dr 
Copyright © 1970, 1978 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
		
HCO BULLETIN OF 13 JANUARY 1971R
Remimeo	REVISED 24 SEPTEMBER 1978
Class IV
Grad	(Revisions and Additions in this type style)
Checksheet
(Revised 24 Sep 78 to give current data on
references covering exteriorization and its handling.)

Interiorization Rundown Series 9

EXTERIORIZATION

On reviews of field-given exteriorization intensives during the past year, I found many cases had been flubbed.

On researching this I found the following:

1. 	The remedy was being used as an effort to exteriorize people. People exteriorize in any normal auditing. What was needed was a remedy to be able to audit them thereafter without driving their TAs up.

2. 	Auditors evidently skimped their HDC Courses and did not know WHY one went to an earlier beginning or earlier incident. Thus they didn’t know why you had to run interiorization.

3. 	HCOB 22 Mar 70 EXTERIORIZATION AND HIGH TA, (now HCOB 4 Jan 71R, EXTERIORIZATION AND HIGH TA, THE INTERIORIZATION RUNDOWN REVISED) must have been studied only for the rote commands. The theory of it was not studied.

4. 	Common Dianetic goofs got in the road of the rundown, the auditor failing to repeat the chain in asking for an earlier incident.... (Ref: HCOB 26 Jun 78RA, Issue II, New Era Dianetics Series 6RA.)

5. 	The exteriorization intensive was being stretched over several sessions. As only it can be audited, between sessions PPS, etc., would intervene.... (Current ref: HCOB 20 Aug 70R, Int RD Series 8, INT RD MUSTS.)

6. 	Clearing the command was flubby and the pc often thought interiorization meant “being in and trying to get out” and so the wrong end of the incident (the end) was being run.

7. 	People who hadn’t been exterior at all and whose TAs were normal—not high— were being run on it.

8. 	It was being sold as a special rundown to exteriorize people, not just to enable them to go on being audited.

The number of Exteriorization Rundown flubs is excessive.

Therefore new HCOBs and a new pack have been issued. These include:

HCOB 4 Jan 71, EXTERIORIZATION AND HIGH TA, REVISED, (now HCOB 4 Jan 71R EXTERIORIZATION AND HIGH TA, THE INTERIORIZATION RUNDOWN REVISED) which contains the theory and NEW COMMANDS nobody can goof.
HCOB 6 Jan 71, STARRATE CHECKOUTS FOR EXTERIORIZATION INTENSIVE. (This data is now in HCOB 25 Sep 78, Issue II, Int RD Series 14 STARRATE CHECKOUTS FOR INTERIORIZATION RUNDOWN.)

HCOB 5 Jan 71, GOING EARLIER IN R3R AND EXTERIORIZATION INTENSIVES. (This issue has been canceled by BTB 10 Dec 74, Issue VIII.)

Commands and procedure for running New Era Dianetics in an Interiorization RD are now contained in:

HCOB 4 Jan 71R, Int RD Series 2, EXTERIORIZATION AND HIGH TA, THE INTERIORIZATION RUNDOWN REVISED.

HCOB 26 Jun 78RA, Issue II, New Era Dianetics Series 6RA, URGENT IMPORTANT, ROUTINE 3RA, ENGRAM RUNNING BY CHAINS.

The glaring outness is Dianetic . . . skill..A Dianetic auditor who can’t run a flubless Dianetic session and get all . . . flows down to F/N studied in doubt, audits in doubt and ought to be in a condition of doubt until he retreads and actually reads the text and does the drills. Dianetics . . . is just too easy to be flubbed.

After patching up many of these done in the field I became very alert to the state of training. A new Course Supervisor course has been done and is being issued.

Obviously, auditors are no longer required to be starrated on new materials before they audit them. This omission must be remedied at once. NO AUDITOR MAY AUDIT MATERIALS OR APPLY HCOBs ON WHICH HE HAS NOT BEEN STARRATED .

No HGC or C/S may order an auditor to run a process if that auditor has not been starrated on its theory and practical first.

As for Dianetics, an auditor who cannot routinely carry a chain to an F/N VGI cog and erasure . . . may not retain his certificate unless retreaded and his certificate is suspended until he is retreaded. (full New Era Dianetics EP is covered in HCOB 16 Sep 78, POSTULATE OFF EQUALS ERASURE.)

For people to goof up using these clean positive tools is inexcusable.

The results are there to be obtained. WE OBTAIN SPECTACULAR POSITIVE RESULTS WITH THESE SAME MATERIALS DAILY WHEREVER THEY ARE ACTUALLY STUDIED AND APPLIED.

Please correct flubby auditing wherever you find it. Auditors must be checked out and drilled on new materials. Courses must be precisely taught. People who flub must be crammed until they don’t. And those who still flub must be retreaded.

The materials when applied produce great results. When they are not applied they don’t.

SO APPLY THEM!

CORRECTLY.

LRH:nt.rd.kim 	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1971, 1978 	Founder 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 16 DECEMBER 1971 RB
Remimeo	REVISED 19 SEPTEMBER 1974
Int RD	RE-REVISED 24 SEPTEMBER 1978
Checksheet
HGC Auditors	(Revisions in this type style)
Cl IV Grad	(Ellipses indicate deletions)
Checksheet

C/S Series 35RB

Interiorization RD Series 10

INTERIORIZATION ERRORS

	REFERENCES:

	HCOB 11 Apr 71 RC	IMPORTANT L3RF, DN & INT RD REPAIR LIST
	HCOB 16 Sep 78	POSTULATE OFF EQUALS ERASURE
	HCOB 4 Jan 71R	Int RD Series 2, EXT AND HIGH TA, THE INT
		RD REVISED
	HCOB 24 Sep 78 I	Int RD Series 4, URGENT IMPORTANT,
		END OF ENDLESS INT REPAIR RD
	HCOB 24 Sep 78 II	Int RD Series 13, PREASSESSMENT AESPs
		AND INT

Almost all the errors in an Interiorization Rundown are Dianetic errors. Most are very ordinary, even corny.

IT IS VITAL TO CORRECT AN INT RD ERROR AS A FIRST ACTION.

There is one Int RD error that is not a purely Dianetic error and that is the error of doing anything else at all before an Int RD is done properly or an Int RD error is fully corrected.

The Int RD error may be . . . that the Int button run did not read on the meter, or read only because of an MU on the word, yet . . . was run. (HCOB 4 Jan 71R.) This classifies as “running an unreading item.”

A common Int error is that the pc is not cleared on the concept of interiorization and the words and commands, so he is being audited over misunderstoods.

Or the Int RD could have been overrun. The EP is reached on . . . F2, let us say. The auditor keeps on going past the win. This will hang up the rundown. One of the ways an overrun occurs is the pc goes exterior during it. Yet the auditor keeps on. Another way is pc has a big cog, big win. Auditor keeps going on with the RD.

When a pc is exteriorized by auditing and is then audited further without being given an Interiorization Rundown, his TA will go high or low and he may be very upset. Heavy masses may come in and he may also get ill.

Int RD errors also may go back to earlier Dianetic errors. A number of unflat incidents invite the overrun of these if they also occur on a Dianetic chain.

To clean up a balled-up Int RD chain or incident one may have to find and clean up the Dianetic error it is sitting on during the clean-up of the Int RD error.
Int RD errors, goofs, etc., are handled by using an Int RD Correction List Revised, HCOB 29 Oct 71RA.

This must be excellently metered so that the original error is not further compounded by misassessment of the correction list and a falsely reading item taken up.

Auditors who can’t run ordinary R3RA with great success should not be let near an Interiorization RD as their lack of smoothness in handling Dianetics will wreck the Int RD.

Auditors who cannot read a meter flublessly should not be let near an Int RD or an Int RD Correction List, or The End of Endless Int Repair RD.

CLASS IV GRAD, HNED  AUDITORS

An excellent Class IV Grad, HNED auditor can easily repair a messed-up Interiorization Rundown after a folder study and by use of an Int RD Correction List Revised, HCOB 29 Oct 71RA and, as indicated, The End of Endless Int Repair RD, HCOB 24 Sep 781, Int RD Series 4.

A Class IV Grad, HNED auditor with an excellent Dianetic record of wins can be given an Int RD to do or to correct IF HE IS STARRATED ON THE INT PACK AND THE TWO-WAY COMM PACK.

REPAIR

Wherever you see a TA high and a pc in trouble your first suspicions should be:

1. 	Audited past Ext in auditing without an Int RD being done.

2. 	Int RD botched by being unnecessary (none of the Int buttons read or read only on MUs), or overrun or auditor goofs in the session.

3. 	A previously messed-up Dianetic action has gotten fouled up with the Int RD.

4. 	The Int command was improperly cleared (such as “means go in and out again” “means trapped” “meant leaving,” etc.).

5. 	Firefights and worries over the high or low TA have ensued after an Int ball-up has occurred.

6. 	Some major action like grades or items of Power have been run twice.

7. 	A C/S has hopefully kept on getting the pc audited without detecting the real reason as a flubbed Int RD, and without getting the Int RD and any repair fully FESed.

PERCENTAGES

The percent of misrun Int RDs  is high, many being unnecessary or overrun.

The liability of leaving them unrepaired is high.

Reasons for high TA are averaging out close to 100% as an unrun or a flubbed and unrepaired Int RD.

EXT IN SESSION

When a pc exteriorizes in session it is the end phenomena for that process or action. One gently ends off in any case. If the pc has not had an Interiorization Rundown, it is vital, in his next session, to check Int (per HCOB 24 Sep 71R INTERIORIZATION RUNDOWN CORRECTION DRILL—DATE TO BLOW/LOCATE TO BLOW) as the first action. All manner of physical and emotion upsets can result, including a high TA, if this step is omitted.

INT MUST BE CHECKED AS THE NEXT ACTION AFTER THE FACT OF THE PC’S FIRST EXTERIORIZATION.

No other auditing is to be done before Int is handled fully or proves to be uncharged upon checking.

If even years after an Int RD the pc has a high TA or a low TA then Int trouble is at once suspected and the original Int RD and any repair of it is suspect and must be handled.

The Int RD Correction List Revised (HCOB 29 Oct 71RA) has been designed to straighten out Int RD errors. L3RF handles the Dianetic errors. Where Int Correction Lists have been done and the pc still has headaches or other Int troubles a thorough FES must be done FIRST on any Int repairs and the Int RD itself BEFORE another correction list or other action is ordered.

Isolate any errors and get them cleaned up by an auditor who can read a meter and run and repair Dianetics standardly.

If Int troubles persist and the C/S is certain that any and all errors have been fully repaired & cleaned off the line, he orders The End of Endless Int Repair RD (HCOB 24 Sep 781, Int RD Series 4). This should totally handle Int.

Or if the C/S is in doubt about how to handle and gets into a mess trying to repair chains, he can cut directly onto the End of Endless Int Repair Rundown and he will get someplace.

There is no real trick to either running a correct Int RD or repairing a flubbed one.

The whole clue is whether or not the auditor can audit plain ordinary garden variety R3RA, and is able to read a meter.

So when ANY auditor audits a pc past exterior and the pc’s TA goes high he should be checked out fully on the Int RD Checksheet so he won’t continue to commit the error.

And when ANYONE is going to run an Int RD he must:

A. 	Be an expert New Era Dianetics auditor and Class IV Graduate.

B. 	Be starrated on all the Int RD Series.

C. 	Be able to read a meter flublessly.

And when any C/S is confronted with high TAs or low TAs and doesn’t handle at once by getting an Int RD properly run or properly repaired he must be rechecked on the New Era Dianetics pack and the Int RD pack.

DN C/S 1

A very careful Dianetic C/S 1 must be done on a previously unindoctrinated pc before he is run on an Int RD.

Otherwise it’s all too new.

A C/S 1 isn’t auditing.

The pc who can’t do what the auditor says or can’t correct an erroneous action is lost.

A fully safe pc would be one who when he goes Ext in auditing is made to do the Hubbard New Era Dianetics Course at once before he even gets any ruds put in and not audited again until he is a Hubbard New Era Dianetics Auditor. He’d be a pc who was relatively safe.

A pc who does what an inexpert auditor says without question can really get fouled up! Uneducated pcs require really flawless topnotch auditors. The auditor who can audit an uneducated pc is a jewel. He really has to know his business. Because the pc does whatever he says. And if he says wrongly, then there goes the session. Ever notice pc corrections in a worksheet? “I think you bypassed an F/N.” “This feels overrun.” “I had Grade 1 last year.” Such auditors are not fully enough trained to handle wholly green pcs!

SIMPLICITY

Honest fellows, it’s as easy to run an Int RD as it is to run “an ear pain.”

It isn’t even mysterious or tough.

IT IS ONLY VERY IMPORTANT TO DETECT WHEN IT NEEDS TO BE DONE OR REPAIRED.

There are no mysteries.

Some auditors have got me feeling like I’m trying to teach them to chew soft bread!

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH:nt.rd.dr 
Copyright © 1971, 1974, 1978 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
		
HCO BULLETIN OF 24 SEPTEMBER 1971R
REVISED 24 SEPTEMBER 1978
Remimeo
Interiorization
Pack	(Revisions in this type style)
Class IV Grad
Checksheet
Interiorization Rundown Series 11

URGENT

INTERIORIZATION RUNDOWN—
CORRECTION DRILL: DATE TO BLOW/LOCATE TO BLOW

It usually happens that an Interiorization Rundown (also known as Int-Ext RD for Interiorization-Exteriorization Rundown) is—

1. 	Done when not necessary.

2. 	Is flubbed in R3RA.

3. 	Is overrun.
UNNECESSARY

The Int buttons must be assessed FIRST, then any reading button or buttons cleared. If a button has read on an MU it must be cleared, then reassessed. If an Int button is validly reading, one does the Int Rundown, per HCOB 4 Jan 71R, Int RD Series 2, EXTERIORIZATION AND HIGH TA, THE INT RD REVISED.

(Clears, OTs and Dianetic Clears would be run instead on The End of Endless Int Repair RD as they cannot be run on Dianetics. This rundown is also well suited as a preliminary action for weak or ill pcs who may be unable to run engrams or secondaries. Ref: HCOB 24 Sept 78, Issue I, Int RD Series 4, URGENT IMPORTANT, THE END OF ENDLESS INT REPAIR RD.)

If there aren’t any reads on the Int buttons even after Suppress, Inval, Misunderstood and False have been applied to the Int button list, one does NOT do an Int Rundown on the pc as it is unnecessary and classifies as “running an unreading item.”

When this test is omitted you get an unnecessary Int RD being done on a pc.

This will eventually have to be repaired.

FLUBBED R3RA

When the auditor does not do flubless auditing, errors occur in the auditing itself. These will hang up an Int RD.

OVERRUN

It usually happens that an Int RD is overrun. The EP is reached on Flow 2, let us say. The auditor keeps on going past the win.

This will hang up the rundown.

One of the ways an overrun occurs is the pc goes exterior during it. Yet the auditor keeps on.

Another way is pc has a big cog, big win. Auditor keeps going on with the RD.

REASON FOR ERRORS

The Int RD is a simple and precise REMEDY which stabilizes a pc after exteriorizing and permits him to be further audited.

When a pc exteriorizes in session it is the end phenomena for that process or action. One gently ends off in any case. If the pc has not had an Interiorization Rundown, it is vital, in his next session, to check Int (as above) as the first action. All manner of physical and emotional upsets can result, including a high TA, if this step is omitted.

INT MUST BE CHECKED AS THE NEXT ACTION AFTER THE FACT OF THE PC’S FIRST EXTERIORIZATION.

No other auditing is to be done before Int is handled fully or proves to be uncharged upon checking.

One reason unnecessary Int RDs get done is that the Registrar sells one. That makes the Reg a C/S. So the C/S and auditor run it.

Maybe it wasn’t needed.

So if it wasn’t needed it will eventually have to be repaired.

HEADACHES

Headaches are a symptom (not every  headache is) of a needed or an incorrect Int RD.

CORRECTION DRILL

The following is the  Correction Drill for an Int RD.

Ninety percent of the pcs run on Int need it.

REQUIREMENTS

An auditor before being allowed to go near a pc Int RD correction must have:

1. 	Word cleared the Int RD pack.

2. 	Must have good TRs.

3. 	Must be good with a meter.

4. 	Must know and use the Auditor’s Code.

5. 	Must have completed the starrate checkouts per Int RD Series 14.

6. 	MUST DO THIS DRILL ON A DOLL UNTIL HE IS FLAWLESS.

Then he can be trusted to do an Int RD correction.

This is the drill (written by a Class XII auditor for use on Flag):

Drill—Int-Ext Repair No. 1

FAILED INT/EXT RD REPAIR
DATE TO BLOW—LOCATE TO BLOW

1. 	By C/S or prepared list read, Int appears overrun.

2. 	Auditor: “We’re going to take a look at the subject of going into things and your Int RD.”

3. 	Auditor: “What was the first time in your auditing that you were willing to go into things? “

4. 	Auditor establishes by pc answer to above and any further 2WC if (a) a flat point exists in or as a result of auditing (or training), (b) the pc feels the Int RD is unflat (c) the pc has misunderstoods on the RD, or (d) the pc never had any trouble with going in and out of things or being audited after exterior. The pc and auditor are satisfied with what they establish above.

5. 	If (a) flat point, auditor establishes what the point was. If (b) unflat, the auditor does an Int RD Correction List or L3RF, if needed. If it does turn out that the Int RD was overrun or unnecessary the auditor proceeds per this drill. If (c) misunderstoods, the auditor clears them up with the pc and then finds out if it was overrun, unflat or unnecessary and handles per this drill. If (d) unnecessary, the auditor indicates it was an unnecessary action and gets an F/N.

6. 	The Int RD was overrun and the flat point has been established per Step 5. The auditor tells the pc, “We’re going to date that point in years, months, etc., ago until something blows off—some mass or energy, etc. I want you to tell me as soon as that happens. Alright?”

7. 	If the pc is confused about “blow” the auditor can do a demo by putting his hand on the pc’s arm and taking it away suddenly.

8. 	When the pc understands what’s expected of him, the auditor establishes the order of magnitude by asking the pc, “Was it years or months ago?”

9. 	The auditor gets the years, months, days, hours, minutes, seconds and fractions of seconds ago to a point when something blows and F/Ns. If the pc gives up on this only then does the auditor meter date the flat point to a blow-F/N.

10. 	If a big BD occurs and the auditor suspects a blow but the pc will not originate it, the auditor can ask the pc if it blew.

11. 	If no blow occurs the auditor verifies each part of the date and corrects where necessary to a blow-F/N. If still no blow-F/N the auditor then checks for an earlier flat point. If there is one, the auditor dates that point to a blow-F/N. If still no blow-F/N the auditor does an L3RF “On your Int RD” and handles fully.

12. 	When the date has gone to a blow-F/N and the F/N has been indicated the auditor tells the pc, “Now we’re going to spot the exact location where that flat point occurred, until something blows off. I want you to tell me when that happens. Alright?” The auditor is getting the PAST physical universe location.
	
13. 	The auditor clears the words stars, planet, galaxy, location, point, if this is the first time Date/Locate is being done on the pc.

14. 	When the pc understands what’s expected of him the auditor begins the Locate steps.

15. 	The auditor says, “Point to that location.” The pc points with his finger until he is satisfied he has the exact direction. Then the auditor goes down the rest of the steps to a blow-F/N.

	Distance?

	Exact?

	What galaxy?

	What star?

	What planet?

	What country?

	What city?

	What street?

	What house?

	Position on street?

	What room?

	Distance from front of house?

	Where in the room?

	How far from each wall?

	How far off the floor?

	How far from the ceiling?

	(NOTE: This step is not rote. Use the questions that apply. For example, if it occurred “next door” you wouldn’t ask “What galaxy?”, etc.)

16. 	If, while locating, the pc starts running the incident or gives too much “scene” the auditor has the pc point again then continues from where he left off on the locate steps.

17. 	If at some point on these steps the location turns out to be in the middle of the ocean or in a field, etc., the auditor uses available landmarks or reference points to get the location (i.e. distance from nearest point of land? or distance from the big rock?) down to a blow-F/N.

18. 	If no blow-F/N, the auditor verifies each part of the Locate step and corrects any necessary to a blow-F/N.

19. 	If the auditor suspects a blow but the pc doesn’t originate it, the auditor asks, “Did something blow?” If the auditor suspects he’s gone past a blow he can check “Did it blow previously?” If so and no F/N the auditor rehabs by asking the pc how long ago that happened and gets the F/N.

20. 	If no blow after verifying the location, or after checking for an earlier location blow, the auditor then has to do an L3RF “On your Int RD” and handle fully.

	NOTE: A blow is a definite manifestation and the pc must say “something blew” or “it disappeared” or “it’s gone” or “it vanished,” not “I feel lighter.”

IMPORTANT

The Date/Locate steps must NOT be done robotically. One has to understand the mechanics of how it’s done and why.

If the pc says “two years ago” on dating, one doesn’t then ask “What galaxy?” on the Locate step, as of course it’s this one. Or what star, etc., either. If you start asking “What galaxy?” on an incident on Earth the pc is thrown back track.

If it happened outside a town in the open you wouldn’t ask what city, house, or street or room, either.

On dating, it’s AGO or it is an actual date. When the pc has it, the auditor doesn’t then alter-is it in sequence. Found by years—months—days—hours— minutes—seconds and fractions, one doesn’t then call it by day, year, month, as it tangles the pc. It’s called back in the same order.

AND in dating one calls the date found back to the pc if there was no instant blow while it was being found. It usually blows on the call of it after it’s known.

AND in locating the same thing occurs. If no blow and it seems correct then the location is called back to the pc.

The essence of the drill is to bring a pc to PT by erasing the date by spotting and the location by spotting, as the pc is out of PT fixed by both date and location.

If the theory is not understood nobody could do it rotely.

This is a highly precise action to be done smoothly with good TRs. Its results are phenomenal.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH:nt. jh.k jm
Copyright © 1971, 1978
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 11 APRIL 1971RC
Remimeo
REVISED 14 JULY 1978
RE-REVISED 21 SEPTEMBER 1978
(Revisions in this type style)
(Ellipses indicate deletions)
IMPORTANT
L3RF
DIANETICS AND INT RD REPAIR LIST

This list includes the most frequent Dianetic errors.

A high or low TA and a bogged case can result from failures to erase a chain of incidents.

DO NOT ATTEMPT TO REPAIR A CHAIN OR ENGRAM WITHOUT USING THIS LIST as it can have different or several errors.

REMEMBER TO CLEAR EACH WORD ON THIS LIST. IF A QUESTION READS AND THE PC SAYS HE DOESN’T UNDERSTAND IT, CLEAR IT AND REASSESS (don’t explain it and take it as it read on a misunderstood not on a fact).

RUNNING PCS ON DIANETICS WITHOUT A FULL AND COMPLETE DN CS-1 INDOCTRINATION IS A FOOLISH ACTION.

TAKE ANY READ FOUND TO F/N BY FULL REPAIR OF IT PER THE INSTRUCTIONS.

1. 	WAS THERE AN EARLIER SIMILAR INCIDENT?	_________
	Indicate it. Run the chain to full EP.

2. 	WAS THERE NO EARLIER SIMILAR INCIDENT?	_________
	Indicate it. Determine if the chain erased or if the last incident needs to be run through again. Complete the chain to full EP by indication or by running it to full EP. Scn handling would include Date/Locate if needed.

3. 	WAS THERE AN EARLIER BEGINNING?	_________
	Indicate it. Handle with R3RA and complete the chain to full EP.

4. 	WAS THERE NO EARLIER BEGINNING?	_________
	Indicate it. Complete the chain to full EP R3RA DEF on last incident if unflat.

5. 	WAS AN F/N INDICATED TOO SOON?	_________
	Indicate it. Run the last incident (or chain) to full EP.

6. 	DID THE AUDITOR STOP JUST BECAUSE THERE WAS AN F/N?	_________
	Indicate it. Complete the chain to full EP using commands DEF on the last incident run.

7. 	WAS AN F/N INDICATED TOO LATE?	_________
	Indicate it. Get off the postulate made at the time of the incident. Indicate the overrun.(Scn handling would include D/L if needed.) . . . Then, if the pc jumped to another chain, get last incident pc ran on the jumped-to chain and do an L3RF on it.

8. 	WAS THE POSTULATE BYPASSED?	_________
	Indicate. Get the postulate. Indicate that the chain was overrun. (Scn handling would include a D/L if necessary.) If pc jumped chains, handle as above.

9. 	HAS THE INCIDENT ERASED?	_________
	Indicate. Get the postulate made at the time of the incident. Indicate the overrun.  (If any difficulty, Scn handling would include a D/L.)

10. 	WAS AN F/N NOT INDICATED AT ALL?	_________
	Indicate. Get off the postulate if not already given. Indicate the overrun. (D/L by Scn auditor if necessary.) If jumped chains, handle as in 7.

11. 	WAS THERE NO CHARGE ON THE ITEM IN THE FIRST PLACE?	_________
	Indicate it, and that it shouldn’t have been run. Scn handling would include D/L if necessary.

12. 	DID YOU JUMP CHAINS?	_________
	Indicate it. Reorient to the original chain. Find out if it erased and get the postulate if not previously given. Indicate the overrun, or run the chain to full EP. Then locate last incident pc ran on the chain he jumped to. As this has now been restimulated but not run, do an L3RF on it. Scn handling would include D/L if necessary.

13. 	DID YOU JUMP FLOWS?	_________
	Indicate it. Reorient to the original chain and take it to full EP using commands DEF. If necessary and the pc is still upset about the other flow, do an L3RF on it.

14. 	WERE THERE FLUBBED COMMANDS? 	_________
	Indicate it, E/S to F/N.

15. 	DID THE AUDITOR GOOF ON A SEQUENCE OF COMMANDS?	_________
	Indicate it, E/S to F/N.

16. 	DID YOU NOT HAVE A COMMAND?	_________ 
	Indicate it, E/S to F/N.

17. 	DID YOU HAVE A MISUNDERSTOOD ON THE COMMAND?	_________
	Find it and clear it.

18. 	SHOULD THE INCIDENT BE RUN THROUGH ONE MORE TIME?	_________
	Indicate it. R3RA DEF on the incident, run chain to full EP.

19. 	TOO LATE ON THE CHAIN?	_________
	Indicate it. Get the earlier similar incident and complete the chain with R3RA to full EP.

20. 	WAS A CHAIN NOT COMPLETED? 	_________
	Indicate it. DEF on the incident, run chain to full EP.

21. 	INCIDENT GONE MORE SOLID?	_________
	Indicate it. Check for earlier incident or earlier beginning and complete the chain to full EP.

22. 	WAS AN INCIDENT SKIPPED?	_________
	Indicate it. Find out what it was, run it and complete the chain to full EP.

23. 	WAS AN INCIDENT LEFT TOO HEAVILY CHARGED?	_________
	Indicate it. Find out what it was, run it through again. Complete the chain to full EP.

24. 	DID YOU SAY SOMETHING WAS ERASED JUST BECAUSE 
	YOU WERE TIRED OF RUNNING IT?	_________
	Indicate it. Complete the chain to full EP with R3RA DEF on the last incident run.

25. 	STOPPED RUNNING AN INCIDENT THAT WAS ERASING? 	_________
	Indicate it. DEF on the incident and erase it. Get full EP.

26. 	WENT PAST BASIC ON A CHAIN?	_________
	Indicate it. Get full EP. Then, if pc jumped to another chain, get last incident pc ran on the jumped-to chain and do an L3RF on it. Scn handling would include D/L if necessary.

27. 	WAS AN EARLIER MISRUN INCIDENT RESTIMULATED? 	_________
	Indicate it. Find out what it was and do an L3RF on it.

28. 	DID TWO OR MORE INCIDENTS GET CONFUSED? 	_________
	Indicate it, sort it out with an L3RF on it.

29. 	WAS AN IMPLANT RESTIMULATED?	_________
	Indicate it. If no joy do an L3RF on the time of the restimulation.

30. 	WAS THE INCIDENT REALLY AN IMPLANT?	_________
	Indicate it. If necessary do an L3RF on it. Scn handling would include D/L if needed.

31. 	WRONG ITEM?	_________
	Indicate it was a wrong item and that all other actions connected with it were wrong. If it is from an L&N list or if any question or difficulty, turn the pc over to a Scientology auditor who is classed to do an L4BRA.

32. 	NOT YOUR ITEM? 	_________
	Indicate it, E/S to F/N.

33. 	NOT YOUR INCIDENT? 	_________
	Indicate it, E/S to F/N. L3RF if any trouble.

34. 	DID THE PREASSESSMENT ITEM GOTTEN HAVE NO CHARGE ON IT?	_________
	Indicate the item was uncharged and should not have been taken up and all items connected with it should not have been run. (Scn handling would include D/L if necessary.)

35. 	WAS THERE ANOTHER PREASSESSMENT ITEM THAT SHOULD HAVE READ?	_________
	Get what it was and note its read as the pc gives it. Find out if the preassessment item taken up is uncharged. If so handle as above. If not, continue with the action you are on to EP and handle the new item given in its order.

36. 	WAS THE ORIGINAL ITEM ALREADY HANDLED?	_________
	Indicate that the original item was already handled and that items connected with it should not have been run. (Son handling would include a D/L if necessary.)

37. 	(OMIT WHEN RUNNING DRUGS)
	WAS THERE NO INTEREST IN RUNNING AN ITEM?	_________
	Indicate it, and that it shouldn’t have been run. Scn handling would include D/L if needed.

38. 	WAS THE SAME THING RUN TWICE?	_________
	Indicate it. Spot the first erasure, indicate the overrun. Scn handling would include D/L if needed.

39. 	WAS THERE A WRONG DATE?	_________
	Indicate it. Get the correct date and run the incident (if unflat) and chain to full EP.

40. 	WAS THERE NO DATE FOR THE INCIDENT?	_________
	Indicate it. Get the date and run the incident (if unflat) and chain to full EP.

41. 	WAS IT A FALSE DATE?	_________
	Indicate it. Get the correct date and run the incident (if unflat) and any chain to full EP.

42. 	WAS THERE AN INCORRECT DURATION?	_________
	Indicate it. Get the correct duration and run the incident (if unflat) and any chain to full EP.

43. 	WAS NO DURATION FOUND FOR THE INCIDENT?	_________
	Indicate it. Get the duration and run the incident (if unflat) and any chain to full EP.

44. 	WAS THERE A FALSE DURATION?	_________
	Indicate it. Get the correct duration and run the incident (if unflat) and any chain to full EP.

45. 	DID YOU RESENT DURATIONS?	_________
	Indicate it. E/S to F/N. Run the incident (if unflat) and any chain to full EP.

46. 	WAS AN EARLIER DIANETIC UPSET RESTIMULATED?	_________
	Locate what it was, indicate it. Sort out with an L3RF if necessary.

47. 	WAS AN EARLIER ARC BREAK ON ENGRAMS RESTIMULATED ?	_________
	Indicate it. Sort it out with an L3RF.

48. 	WAS THERE AN ARC BREAK IN THE INCIDENT? 	_________
	Indicate it. Run the incident, if unflat, to full EP.

49. 	WERE YOU PROTESTING? 	_________
	Indicate it, clean it up E/S to F/N.

50. 	DID THE AUDITOR DEMAND MORE THAN YOU COULD SEE?	_________
	Indicate it, E/S to F/N. If any difficulty, turn the pc over to a Scientology auditor classed to do an L1C if necessary.

51. 	DID THE AUDITOR REFUSE TO ACCEPT WHAT YOU WERE SAYING?	_________
	Indicate it, E/S to F/N. If any difficulty, turn the pc over to a Scientology auditor classed to do an L1C as necessary.

52. 	WERE YOU PREVENTED FROM RUNNING AN INCIDENT?	_________	
	Indicate it, E/S to F/N. Run the incident (if unflat) to full EP. If any difficulty turn the pc over to a Scientology auditor classed to do an L1C on it.

53. 	DID THE AUDITOR SIMPLY STOP GIVING COMMANDS? 	_________	
	Indicate it. Complete the chain by running the last incident found DEF to full EP.

54. 	WAS A COGNITION INTERRUPTED?	_________
	Indicate it.... Get the cognition and any postulate connected with it. (if any difficulty at this point turn pc over to a Scientology auditor for an L1C.) Continue chain if unflat, or indicate the overrun.

55. 	WAS THERE A POSTULATE THAT WAS NOT EXPRESSED?	_________
	Indicate it.... Get the postulate and indicate the overrun. (Scn handling would include L1C or D/L if needed.)

56. 	WERE YOU DISTRACTED WHILE RUNNING AN INCIDENT?	_________
	Indicate it, E/S to F/N. Run the incident (if unflat) and any chain to full EP. If any difficulty, turn pc over to a classed Scientology auditor for L1C.

57. 	WERE YOU AUDITED OVER AN ARC BREAK?	_________
		PROBLEM?	_________
		WITHHOLD?	_________
	Indicate it. If you are trained to do so, handle the out rud. If not, turn the pc over to a Scientology auditor classed to handle out ruds. Do not pull W/Hs before the engram or chain is repaired or it will mush engrams.

58. 	WERE YOU HELD UP BY THE AUDITOR?	_________ 
	Indicate it, E/S to F/N.

59. 	WAS AN ITEM SUPPRESSED?	_________
	Indicate it. Get the Suppress off E/S to F/N, then run the item and any chain to full EP.

60. 	WAS AN ITEM INVALIDATED?	_________
	Indicate it. Get the Inval off E/S to F/N, then run the item and any chain to full EP.

61. 	WAS AN ITEM ABANDONED?	_________
	Indicate it, get the item back and run the item and any chain to full EP.

62. 	WAS A CHAIN ABANDONED?	_________ 
	Indicate it, get the chain back and run to full EP.

63. 	WAS THE ITEM ORIGINALLY MISWORDED?	_________
	Indicate it. Get the correct wording and give it to him. Handle to full EP if unflat.

64. 	WAS THE WORDING OF THE ITEM CHANGED?	_________
	Indicate it. Get the correct wording and give it to him. Run it (if unflat) to full EP.

65. 	WERE YOU RUNNING AN ITEM THAT WAS DIFFERENT THAN THE ONE ASSESSED?	_________
	Indicate it. Get the item the pc was actually running, handle to full EP. Then L3RF on the item actually assessed.

66. 	STUCK PICTURE?	_________
	Indicate it. Do an L3RF on it. You can also unstick it by having him recall a time before it and a time after it.

67. 	ALL BLACK?	_________
	Spot the black field or picture. Get the correct duration. If no go, L3RF on it.

68. 	INVISIBLE? 	_________
	Spot the invisible field or picture. L3RF on it.

69. 	CONSTANTLY CHANGING PICTURES?	_________
	Indicate there was a misassessment and a wrong item was taken off the list. Get the correct item and run it, or L3RF on that session.

70. 	WHEN YOU SAID IT WAS ERASED DID IT STILL HAVE A MASS?	_________
	Indicate it. DEF, checking for earlier beginning, run to erasure and full EP. If necessary do an L3RF on it.

71. 	WAS THERE A PERSISTENT MASS? 	_________
	L3RF on it.

72. 	WAS THERE TROUBLE WITH A PRESSURE ITEM OR PRESSURE ON AN ITEM?	_________
	L3RF on it.

73. 	DID YOU GO EXTERIOR?	_________
	Indicate it. Handle if you are a Scientology auditor. Turn the pc over to a Scientology auditor for a full Int RD or become a classed Scientology auditor and handle.

74. 	WAS YOUR INT RD MESSED UP?	_________
	Indicate it. Handle if you are a Scientology auditor. If not, turn the pc over to a Scientology auditor to get his Int RD straightened out, or get trained as a classed Scientology auditor and handle.

75. WERE YOU AUDITED OVER DRUGS, MEDICINE OR ALCOHOL?	_________
	Indicate it. L3RF on that time, then verify all chains to ensure they erased. Note for C/S attention to verify if Objectives and all other points of full drug handling have been done.

76. 	WAS A PAST DEATH RESTIMULATED?	_________
	Indicate it. If it doesn’t blow run it out Narrative Secondary R3RA.

77. 	DID YOU ATTAIN SOME STATE AND IT WAS INVALIDATED?	_________
	Indicate it. Return folder to C/S for handling.

78. 	DID YOU GO CLEAR AND NOBODY WOULD LET YOU DECLARE?	_________
	Indicate it. Return folder to C/S for handling.

79. 	WAS THERE NOTHING WRONG IN THE FIRST PLACE?	_________	
	Indicate it. Continue the action you were on.

80. 	WAS THIS LIST UNNECESSARY?	_________
	Indicate it. If it doesn’t F/N turn the pc over to a Scientology auditor for a rehab or become a Scientology auditor to handle.

81. 	HAS THE REAL REASON BEEN MISSED? 	_________
	Indicate it. Locate the real reason and handle.

82. 	WAS SOMETHING ELSE WRONG? 	_________
	Locate what it is and sort it out.

LRH:ldv.dr	L. RON HUBBARD 
Copyright © 1971, 1978 	Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 29 OCTOBER 1971RA
Remimeo	REVISED 14 MAY 1974
Auditors Cl IV	RE-REVISED 24 SEPTEMBER 1978
and above
C/Ses	
Int RD Chksht
Cl IV Grad
Chkshts	
Interiorization Rundown Series 12

INT RUNDOWN CORRECTION LIST
REVISED

PC:	DATE:_____________________

PC GRADE:	AUDITOR: _________________

The purpose of this list is to correct an unflat, overrun or otherwise messed up Int RD.

This list is used when:

A) 	The subject of Int/Ext reads on a repair list and the Int RD has already been run.

B) 	A bog occurs on the Int RD itself. An L3RF would first be used to detect any Dianetic errors.

C) 	The pc is upset after the Int RD or the End of Endless Int Repair RD, has head somatics, high or low TA, or is not VGIs on the subject of going into things.

NOTE 1: Per HCOB 12 Sep 78, URGENT. IMPORTANT, DIANETICS FORBIDDEN ON CLEARS AND OTs, Dianetic Clears, Clears and OTs are not to be audited on the Int RD as it uses Dianetics. They may be given the End of Endless Int Repair RD as it is a Recall Process.

The following list may be assessed on Dianetic Clears, Clears and OTs, however, as: 1) it also applies to the End of Endless Int Repair RD and 2) the pc may have been run on the Int RD before the above HCOB was issued.

If a Dianetic Clear, Clear or OT reads on any question which calls for a Dianetic handling (Ex: Questions 2. 3, 4, 7, 9, 29) the Dianetic handling is not done. Do NOT engage in. any activity that brings about further engram running.

The correct action, if you get a read on one of the above questions, is to indicate it and let the pc tell you about it if he wishes, to bring it to an F/N.

Where the handling calls for an L3RF, an L3RF could be assessed, but you must not do more than indicate the reading questions. You must not engage in engram running.

Otherwise, the handlings given on the Int RD Correction List may be done on Clears and OTs. A Clear or OT who then has any further unresolving Int trouble would be referred to an AO for handling.

NOTE  2: If the pc has had only the End of Endless Int Repair RD do not assess those questions marked with an asterisk (*) (Questions 2, 3, 4, 29) or do any repair action that calls for Dianetics.

Assess this list Method 3.

Take up each item that reads and get the reading item fully repaired to F/N. Suppress and False can be used as needed to take a question to F/N. Handle each read to F/N. Do not go on to another question leaving one that has not F/Ned.

If at any time while doing the list the pc has a big win with F/N, VGIs, acknowledge, indicate the F/N and end off. Do not take the list beyond a major win for the pc.

R-FACTOR: We are going to do an assessment concerning the subject of interiorization. (If pc does not understand this R-Factor clear up what the Int RD or the End of Endless Int Repair RD was as he may not have recognized it.)

____________

1.	ON YOUR INT HANDLING IS A RECALL FLOW UNFLAT?	______

	Assess the following, using the Int button the pc has been run on.

	Is recall a time when you (Int button) unflat?	______

	Is recall a time when you caused another (Int button) unflat?	______

	Is recall a time when others caused others (Int button) unflat?	______

	Is recall a time when you caused yourself (Int button) unflat?	______
 	(Assess on Quad pcs only.)

	For Int RD: Flatten the unflat flow(s) to F/N, cog, VGIs.

	For End of Endless Int Repair RD: Pick up the unflat flow and handle to four F/Ning flows on that Int button. Then reassess the Int buttons, as the entire RD may not have been flattened and will now need to be.

*2. 	ON YOUR INT RD WAS A CHAIN OR INCIDENT LEFT UNFLAT?	______

	Find out which one(s). Handle with an L3RF.

*3. 	(NOTE: ASSESS No. 3 ONLY ON PCs WHO’VE HAD THE ORIGINAL INT RD, NOT THE REVISED INT RD.)

	IS A SECONDARY FLOW UNFLAT?	______

	L3RF and handle.

*4. 	IS AN ENGRAM FLOW UNFLAT? 	______
	L3RF and handle.

5.	WAS SOME PART OF YOUR INT HANDLING MISRUN?	______
	Find out what.

	For Int RD: handle with an L3RF any messed up chains.

	For End of Endless Int Repair RD: straighten out any messed up recall flows and handle per No. 1 above.

6.	DID YOU RUN THE CONCEPT OF “BEING IN” OR “BEING STUCK IN” INSTEAD OF THE CONCEPT OF “GOING IN?”	______

	Sort it out. Find out what was run. Handle any confusions. If it is established that he didn’t run the concept of “going in” on whatever the running button was, check the button for read. If it reads, run the Int RD or End of Endless Int Repair RD properly. Do not run the RD if the button doesn’t read.

7.	WERE YOU RUNNING AN ITEM THAT WAS DIFFERENT THAN THE ONE ASSESSED?	______

	Indicate it. Get the item the pc was actually running and take it to full EP if not yet flat. Then recheck the item that was assessed, put in Suppress and Inval as necessary, and if charged run the item that was assessed (on whichever RD the pc had).

8.	DID THE INT BUTTON ASSESSED HAVE NO CHARGE ON IT?	______

	Indicate the button was uncharged and should not have been run and all actions connected with it should not have been run. D/L if necessary.

9.	WAS THERE ANOTHER INT BUTTON THAT SHOULD HAVE READ?	______

	Get what it was and note its read as the pc gives it. Find out if the Int button that was taken up instead is charged. If so, complete any handling on it to F/N. If not, handle as in No. 8 above. Then handle the new item, if charged, on Int RD or End of Endless Int Repair RD, whichever applies.

10. 	ON YOUR INT HANDLING WERE YOU RUN ON A RECALL FLOW THAT HAD NO CHARGE ON IT?	______

	Find out which one and indicate that that flow should not have been run.

11. 	CAN’T YOU GET IN?	______

	If so, L&N to BD F/N item “Who or what was afraid to go into things?” Then run alternate repetitively “What did (item found) do?” “What did (item found) withhold?” to an F/N and a blow.

12. 	DO YOU HAVE AN OUT-LIST?

	Handle with L4BRA.

13. 	WAS THE RUNDOWN DONE OVER AN ARC BREAK?	______

		PROBLEM?	______
		WITHHOLD?	______
		OVERT? 	______
	Indicate and handle to F/N.

14. 	WAS THE RUNDOWN DONE OVER SOME OTHER BYPASSED CHARGE?	______
	Find out what and handle.

15. 	WAS THE WORDING OF THE RUNDOWN BADLY CLEARED?	______
	
	Fully clear all MUs to F/N.

16. 	ON YOUR INT HANDLING WAS THERE A MISUNDERSTOOD WORD?	______

	Fully clear all MUs to F/N.

17. 	WERE YOU CONFUSED ABOUT SOMETHING?	______

	Clear it up with the correct references. Itsa E/S itsa to F/N.

18. 	DIDN’T YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT THE RD WAS FOR?	______

	Clear this up with correct references. Itsa E/S itsa to F/N.

19. 	WERE YOU THINKING OF LEAVING DURING INT?	______

	Itsa E/S itsa to F/N.

20. 	WERE YOU LEAVING A POST?	______

	Itsa E/S itsa to F/N.

21. 	WERE YOU TRYING TO GET A POST?	______

	Itsa E/S itsa to F/N.

22. 	ANYTHING TO DO WITH JAILS?	______

	Itsa E/S itsa to F/N.

23. 	ARE YOU WANTED ANYWHERE?	______

	Itsa E/S itsa to F/N.

24. 	ARE YOU AFRAID THAT IF YOU GET OUT YOU WILL CAUSE DAMAGE?	______

	Itsa E/S itsa to F/N.

25. 	WOULD LETTING YOU OUT BE AN OVERT?	______

	Itsa E/S itsa to F/N.

26. 	HAVE YOU FAILED TO GET OUT IN AN EARLIER RELIGION OR PRACTICE?	______

	Itsa E/S itsa to F/N. Note for C/S to handle earlier practices on program.

27. 	DO YOU JUST MOVE BACK INTO THE BODY AND PUSH AGAINST IT?	______

	Itsa E/S itsa to F/N.

28. 	WERE THERE AUDITOR ERRORS?	______

	Indicate. Sort it out and clean up BPC. If R3RA errors, use an L3RF (except for Clears, etc.), L1C if necessary.

*29. 	WERE THERE ERRORS ON ENGRAMS?	______

	Find out what and handle with an L3RF.

30. 	(ASSESS ONLY ON DN CLEARS, CLEARS OR OTs.) WERE YOU AUDITED ON DIANETICS AFTER GOING DIANETIC CLEAR OR SCN CLEAR?	______

	Indicate that he should not have been run on Dianetics after Clear. If no F/N, D/L when he went Clear.

31. 	HAS INT BEEN NEGLECTED FOR A LONG TIME?	______

	Indicate. Itsa E/S itsa to F/N.

32. 	ARE YOU WORRIED BECAUSE INTERIORIZATION CONTINUES TO READ?	______

	Indicate. Itsa E/S itsa to F/N.

33. 	ARE YOU CONCERNED BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO BE REVIEWED?	______

	Indicate. Itsa E/S itsa to F/N.

34. 	WAS THE INT RD (END OF ENDLESS INT REPAIR RD) ALREADY FLAT?	______

	Indicate. Date/Locate the flat point.

35. 	WAS YOUR INT HANDLING OVERRUN?	______

	Indicate. Date/Locate the flat point.

36. 	WAS INT HANDLING UNNECESSARY IN THE FIRST PLACE?	______

	Indicate. If no F/N, Date/Locate the point he felt good about going into things.

37. 	DID YOU FEEL FINE ABOUT GOING INTO THINGS TO BEGIN WITH?	______

	Indicate it. If no F/Ns Date/Locate that point.

38. 	IS YOUR INT HANDLING PERFECTLY OKAY?	______

	Indicate. If no F/N, Date/Locate the point he felt good about going into things.

39. 	HAS YOUR INT HANDLING BEEN OVERREPAIRED?	______

	Indicate. Date/Locate the flat point.

40. 	HAS INT BEEN RUN SEVERAL TIMES OVER?	______
	Indicate. Date/Locate the flat point.

41. 	HAS THE INT RD CORRECTION LIST BEEN OVERDONE?	______

	Indicate. If no F/N Date/Locate the point he felt his Int RD was repaired.

42. 	ON YOUR INT HANDLING DID YOU GO PAST A WIN?

	Indicate. Rehab the win to F/N VGIs. If no F/N, Date/Locate that point.

43. 	DURING YOUR INT HANDLING DID YOU GO EXTERIOR?	______

	Indicate. Rehab to F/N VGIs. If no F/N, Date/Locate that point.

44. 	IS THIS ACTION UNNECESSARY?	______

	Indicate. If no F/N itsa E/S itsa to F/N.

45. 	IS THERE SOMETHING ELSE WRONG?	______

	Find out what and handle.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH:dr 
Copyright © 1971, 1974, 1978 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
		
HCO BULLETIN OF 24 SEPTEMBER 1978
Issue II
C/Ses
Tech/Qual
Int Auditors
Class IV Grad
Interiorization Rundown Series 13

PREASSESSMENT, AESPs AND INT

Although the newly revised Int Rundown uses New Era Dianetics R3RA commands, with the assessed Int button as the running item, the rundown and its repair do NOT include the use of New Era Dianetics preassessment (nor any form of AESPs).

In Int you can only address Int. A preassessment addresses something else.

Wins are sometimes reported on the use of preassessment on Int but it is a dangerous and dicey procedure. It isn’t really directly addressing Int. That actually violates the law that when handling Int you run only Int, nothing else.

Using preassessment, whereas you might have one win you’ll have five failures along with it. Sure, somebody got some wins on it but the next five guys will cave right in and go over the cliff.

The apparency of the win is this: Int flattened and this went unnoticed and then they were running an original item having to do with headaches or some other symptom. This was then preassessed and the person was on the line with R3RA which, of course, can be run after you’ve done an Int Rundown.

So the apparency here is that the use of preassessment handled Int, whereas Int probably had actually flattened first and then the person was able to get gains from the preassessment and auditing that was done.

This could go in the opposite direction. For example, with Int still unflat you go into preassessment, and you’re not now addressing the subject of Int itself. You are now into chains that are not Int chains, with the Int chains themselves restimulated but not yet run, or not fully run. So it is actually a violation of basic tech and it would very swiftly get into a tangled mess.

The rule is: WHEN HANDLING INT YOU ADDRESS ONLY INT, NOTHING ELSE. AND YOU DO NOT RUN PREASSESSMENT OR AESPs ON INT.

We have a new, simplified Int Rundown with which to handle it and an extremely workable process in the End of Endless Int Repair Rundown which resolves any persistent Int trouble.

R3RA and preassessment can be run in full by the book, exactly per the New Era Dianetics Series, after Int handling has been completed.

LRH: dr 	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1978 	Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 17 DECEMBER 1971RB
Remimeo	(HCOB 2 December 1970 Revised)
Int RD	REVISED 30 MARCH 1974
Chksht	RE-REVISED 24 SEPTEMBER 1978
Chkshts	(Revisions in this type style)

(Ellipses indicate deletions)

Interiorization Rundown Series 15
C/S Series 23RB

INTERIORIZATION SUMMARY

Int Rundowns can be hugely successful, but also INTERIORIZATION CAN BE BADLY MISRUN.

The following references cover the subject of interiorization/exteriorization:

	HCOB 4 Oct 78	Int RD Series 1
		Interiorization Handling Simplified
	HCOB 4 Jan 71R	Int RD Series 2
		Exteriorization and High TA,
		The Interiorization Rundown Revised
	HCOB 30 May 70R	Int RD Series 3
		Interiorization Intensive; 2-Way Comm
	HCOB 24 Sep 78 1	Int RD Series 4 Urgent Important
		The End of Endless Int Repair Rundown
	HCOB 25 Sep 78 1	Int RD Series 5
		Quad Commands for Int Buttons
	HCOB 11 Apr 70R	Int RD Series 6
		Auditing Past Exterior
	HCOB 6 May 70R	Int RD Series 7
		Blows—Auditing Past Exterior
	HCOB 20 Aug 70R	Int RD Series 8
		Interiorization Rundown Musts
	HCOB 13 Jan 71R	Int RD Series 9
		Exteriorization
	HCOB 16 Dec 71RB	Int RD Series 10, C/S Series 35RB
		Interiorization Errors
	HCOB 24 Sep 71R	Int RD Series 11
		Interiorization Rundown Correction
		Drill: Date to Blow/Locate to Blow
	HCOB 29 Oct 71RA	Int RD Series 12
		Int Rundown Correction List Revised
	HCOB 24 Sep 78 11	Int RD Series 13
		Preassessment, AESPs and Int
	HCOB 25 Sep 78 11	Int RD Series 14
		Starrate Checkouts for Interiorization Rundown
	HCOB 17 Dec 71RB	Int RD Series 15, C/S Series 23RB
		Interiorization Summary
	HCOB 16 Oct 78 11	Int RD Series 16, C/S Series 102
		C/S Checklist of Int Errors
	HCOB 26 Jun 78RA	New Era Dianetics Series 6RA
	Issue II	Urgent, Important, Routine 3RA, Engram Running
		By Chains
	BTB 12 Jan 75	Quads Reinstated
	HCOB 4 Apr 71-1RB	C/S Series 32RA-1RB
		Use of Quad Dianetics
	HCOB 21 Apr 70	2-Way Comm C/Ses
	HCOB 3 Jul 70	C/S Series 14
		Two-Way Comm
	HCOB 17 Mar 74	TWC Checksheets, TWC, Using Wrong Questions

The examination of Interiorization Rundowns done in the field discloses that some auditors engaged in running it have not been fully checked out on it. HCO PL 26 Aug 1965 gives the correct way to do a starrate checkout. Clay demos must also be correctly done. These are covered in HCOB 11 Oct 1967 and HCOB 10 Dec 1970/.

These HCOBs on starrates and clay demos, the Int RD Series, the above-listed issues on R3RA, Engram Running by Chains (New Era Dianetics Series 6RA), 2-Way Comm Sessions, and Quads, make the necessary pack for checking out an auditor before letting him near an Int Rundown. And all interiorization materials as above MUST BE CHECKED OUT STARRATE AND IN CLAY before a C/S permits one of his auditors to run it on a pc.

UNNECESSARY

The Int buttons MUST be assessed before clearing, and then any reading button cleared before it is run. The auditor must ensure that if a button read on an MU it is first cleared, then reassessed for read. If one or more of the buttons is validly reading, one does an Int Rundown per HCOB 4 Jan 71R, Int RD Series 2, Exteriorization and High TA, The Int Rundown Revised.

If there aren’t any reads, even after Suppress, Invalidate, Misunderstood, and False have been applied to the Int button list, one does NOT do an Int Rundown on the pc as it is unnecessary and classifies as “running an unreading item.”

When this test is omitted you get an unnecessary Int RD being done on a pc.

This would eventually have to be repaired.

FLUBBED R3RA

When the auditor does not do flubless auditing, errors occur in the auditing itself. These will hang up an Int RD.

QUADS OR TRIPLES

DO NOT RUN A PC ON FLOW ZERO FOR THE FIRST TIME ON INT. A TRIPLE PC CAN BE QUADED AFTER INT HANDLING IS COMPLETE, BUT IT IS NEVER DONE ON INT HANDLING OR INT REPAIR. (Ref: HCOB 4 Jan 71R.)

OVERRUN

It usually happens that an Int RD is overrun. The EP is reached on F2, let us say. The auditor keeps on going past the win.

This will hang up the rundown.

One of the ways an overrun occurs is the pc goes exterior during it. Yet the auditor keeps on.

Another way is pc has a big cog, big win. Auditor keeps going on with the RD. (HCOB 24 Sep 71R, Rev. 24.9.7B, Int RD Series 11, Urgent, Interiorization Rundown —Correction Drill: Date to Blow/Locate to Blow.)

Also see HCOB 24 Sep 781, Urgent Important, The End of Endless Int Repair RD.

REPAIR OF INT

If even years after an Int RD the pc has a high TA or a low TA, then Int trouble is at once suspected and the original Int RD and any repair of it is suspect and must be handled. (HCOB 16 Dec FORD, C/S Series 35RB, Int RD Series 10, Interiorization Errors.)

The Int RD Correction List Revised (HCOB 29 Oct BRA) has been designed to straighten out Int RDs. L3RF handles the Dianetic errors. Where Int Correction Lists have been done and the pc still has headaches or other Int troubles a thorough FES must be done FIRST on any Int repairs and the Int RD itself BEFORE another correction list or other action is ordered.

Isolate any errors and get them cleaned up by an auditor who can read a meter and run and repair Dianetics standards

With any errors cleaned off the line, if Int troubles persist the C/S orders The End of Endless Int Repair RD (HCOB 24 Sep 781, Int RD Series 4). (HCOB 16 Dec ORB, C/S Series 35RB, Int RD Series 10, Interiorization Errors.)

TWO-WAY COMM

There is a two-way comm step that follows a day or so after an Interiorization Rundown.

An auditor doing this step, preferably the same auditor, MUST BE CHECKED OUT ON TWO-WAY COMM.

No C/S should permit any auditor to do any 2-way comm until the auditor has been checked out on:

HCOB 21 Apr 70,  2-Way Comm C/Ses
HCOB 3 July 70,  C/S Series 14, C/Sing Two-Way Comm
HCOB 17 Mar 74,  TWC Checksheets, TWC, Using Wrong Questions

and has been drilled on two-way comm until he can do it correctly and comfortably.

PREASSESSMENTS, AESPs NOT USED ON INT

The Int Rundown and its repair do NOT include the use of New Era Dianetics preassessment (nor any form of AESPs).

The rule is: WHEN HANDLING INT YOU ADDRESS ONLY INT, NOTHING ELSE. DO NOT RUN PREASSESSMENT OR AESPs ON INT. (HCOB 24 Sep 7811, Int RD Series 13, Preassessment, AESPs and Int.)

C/SING INT

The correcting of an Interiorization Rundown is far harder than making sure that auditors can do the usual in the first place.

Nearly all a C/S’s hard work comes from auditors not well trained on courses (indifferent courses) and failing to check auditors out well on the materials before permitting them to deliver a new rundown.

The correction of Int is hard since until it is complete, other auditing is inadvisable. One however, gets the Int Rundown done.

The End of Endless Int Repair Rundown has vastly simplified the handling of Int repair. (Ref: HCOB 24 Sep 78 I, Int RD Series 4, Urgent Important The End of Endless Int Repair Rundown.)

INT IS A REMEDY

The Int RD is a simple and precise REMEDY which stabilizes a pc after exteriorizing and permits him to be further audited.

When a pc exteriorizes in session it is the end phenomena for that process or action. One gently ends off in any case. If the pc has not had an Interiorization Rundown, it is vital, in his next session, to check Int (per HCOB 24 Sep OR, Rev. 24 Sep 78, Int RD Series 11, Urgent, Interiorization Rundown Correction Drill: Date to Blow/Locate to Blow) as the first action. All manner of physical and emotional upsets can result, including a high TA, if this step is omitted.

INT MUST BE CHECKED AS THE NEXT ACTION AFTER THE FACT OF THE PC’S FIRST EXTERIORIZATION.

No other auditing is to be done before Int is handled fully or proves to be uncharged upon checking.

One reason unnecessary Int RDs get done is that the Registrar sells one. That makes the Reg a C/S. So the C/S and auditor run it.

Maybe it wasn’t needed.

So if it wasn’t needed it will eventually have to be repaired. (HCOB 24 Sep 71R, Rev. 24 Sep 78, Int RD Series 11, Urgent, Interiorization Rundown Correction Drill: Date to Blow/Locate to Blow). (Repair with an Int RD Correction List Revised HCOB 29 Oct 1971RA and/or an End of Endless Int Repair RD, HCOB 24 Sep 78 I, Int RD Series 4.

The Interiorization Rundown is a REMEDY designed to permit the pc to be further audited after he has gone exterior.

In the case of Dianetic Clears or Son Clears and OTs, as they are not to be audited on Dianetics, the REMEDY would be the End of Endless Int Repair RD.

The Int Rundown is NOT to be sold or passed off as a method of exteriorizing a pc. Nor is the End of Endless Int Repair Rundown. This is very important.

It is general auditing on usual Dianetics and Scientology actions that brings about Exteriorization .
When the pc goes or is found to be exterior and Int proves to be charged on checking one then orders the Interiorization Rundown. Otherwise the TA will misbehave.

The rundown is a REMEDY USED AFTER EXTERIORIZATION HAS OCCURRED BY REASON OF GENERAL AUDITING.

Anxiety to get exterior will prompt a pc to buy and a Registrar to sell an Interiorization Rundown. It is in effect just more auditing as far as the Registrar is concerned. When a pc has gone exterior the Registrar can insist on his buying enough hours for the remedy.

The Int Rundown stabilizes the exteriorization and makes it possible to audit the pc further.

DISABILITY

If an auditor can’t smoothly audit a rundown as simple as an Int Rundown, then he is exposed as being unable to run standard Dianetics and should be cleared of his misunderstoods and overts and retrained.

The only real trouble one gets into on an Int Rundown stems from the inability of the auditor to run a smooth, good TRed R3RA session. Pcs are not hard to run on it.

C/S WINS

A C/S cannot win at all if he is continually having to make up for flubby auditing by the auditor.

Therefore the C/S must be very sure his auditors are fully checked out on things they are to run before running them.

If there is no Qual Staff Training Officer or no cramming, a C/S can fully afford to do the training and cramming himself. Otherwise he will lose far more than that time in C/Sing for auditors not checked out.

By the skill of his auditors you know the C/S. Not by his unusual solutions after flubs.

The Int Rundown is too easy to do to have any trouble—the trouble comes when the auditors are not checked out beforehand, starrate and in clay on new things they are to run.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

(Updated with recent LRH 
data by order of
L. Ron Hubbard by 
Training & Services Bureau)

Re-revised by
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH:MH:ntm.jk 
Copyright © 1970, 1971, 1974, 1978 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
		
HCO BULLETIN OF 16 OCTOBER 1978
Issue II
C/Ses
Tech/Qual
Class IV Grad 
Interiorization Rundown Series 16

C/S Series 102

C/S CHECKLIST OF INT ERRORS

There are two major errors that occur most frequently on Int handling which a C/S must be on the alert for:

1. 	DOING OR RUNNING ANYTHING ELSE BEFORE AN INT RUNDOWN WHEN ONE IS NEEDED.

2. 	OVERRUNNING THE INT RUNDOWN.

By far the commonest error is number one above. It happens most often at the very beginning of a session on Int itself, by the auditor engaging in two-way comm or ruds or a belabored and overcomplicated clearing of commands, or some other action than getting right onto the running of Int.

This is flagrant. When I was C/Sing, it is what I kept running into—the auditor doing all kinds of preliminary steps before starting Int. It boils down to auditing over out-Int, and it can’t be done.

You’ll get the auditor who says, “But all I did was ask him how he was feeling.” That’s enough. That’s two-way comm, and you can’t run anything else but Int when Int is out, and that includes two-way comm. You don’t ask the pc how he feels about anything. You just start the Int Rundown.

So that’s the first major error to watch for: somebody trying to run something else before the Int Rundown itself.

The second is OVERRUN. Pc has a big cognition, a big win, TA blowdown, and the auditor misses it, goes right on past it and continues auditing. Or the pc exteriorizes and the auditor continues past exterior.

There is vital data on the end phenomena of Int on HCOB 4 Jan 71R, Int RD Series 2, and both C/S and auditor MUST have this data and know and be able to recognize the EP of Int when it occurs. Otherwise it will really mess up a case.

Those are the two major violations a C/S (and an auditor) must not permit in the running of Int if it is to be successful.

Because they are the most major errors they have been included first on the checklist below.

C/S CHECKLIST FOR DETECTING ERRORS ON INT:

The following is a checklist to be used in the C/Sing of Int. The C/S checks a bogged session or any session on Int, against this list to detect the exact cause of the trouble, or an error that could be the source of future trouble in ensuing sessions.

1. 	Doing or running anything else before an Int Rundown when one is needed. (Includes ruds, 2-way comm, L1C, anything.)

2. 	Auditing over out-Int.

3. 	Overrunning the Int Rundown.

4. 	Auditing past exterior.

5. 	Overdoing the clearing steps preceding the actual rundown.

6. 	Running an Int button that only read on an MU or false read. (Failure to clear an Int button before running it.)

7. 	Clearing all of the Int buttons before assessment, instead of clearing only the button with the largest valid read.

8. 	Failure to use Suppress, Invalidate, and Misunderstood on an unreading Int button list.

9. 	Misassessment of the Int button list.

10. 	Doing an Int Rundown when none of the buttons have read. (Constitutes running an unreading item.)

11. 	Auditor can’t get reads or make a list read.

12. 	Not taking the Int Rundown to its full EP.

13. 	Not understanding the theory of Int and R3RA, and WHY one goes earlier or asks for an earlier beginning to the incident.

14. 	Running the concept of “was in” or “stuck in” instead of the concept of “moving in” or “going in” (on whatever the reading Int button is).

15. 	Not repeating the actual button for the chain when asking for an earlier incident. (Not knowing R3RA commands.)

16. 	Not completing a chain to full Dianetic EP.

17. 	Not completing any one flow on an Int button in one session; thus ending a session on an unflat flow.

18. 	Introducing Flow 0 to a pc for the first time on Int Rundown or Int repair. (I.e. running a Triple pc on Quad Flows.)

19. 	Auditing over an earlier Dianetic error.

20. 	Auditing the rundown “to exteriorize” the pc.

21. 	Using preassessment or AESPs on Int.

22. 	Misassessing or incorrectly handling the Int Correction List.

23. 	Overcorrecting the Int Rundown.
24. 	Running Dianetics on a Dianetic Clear, Scn Clear or OT.

25. 	And, on the part of the C/S, attempting to correct a botched Int Rundown without a full FES of the Int RD or any Int repair being done first.

___________

The above points are all covered fully in the Int Rundown Series. Cases that are not running well on Int will be found to have had one or more of these errors committed on them.

Using the above list to spot and prevent Int errors will make the C/S’s job lighter and give both auditor and pc a smoother run on Int.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH: jk 
Copyright © 1978 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 25 SEPTEMBER 1978
Remimeo	Issue II
HGC Auditors
Class VIII	(Cancels BTB 6 Jan 71R, same title)
Cl IV Grad
C/Ses
Tech Secs	Interiorization Rundown Series 14
Qual Secs
Supervisors
STARRATE CHECKOUTS FOR
INTERIORIZATION RUNDOWN

	(Ref: 	HCOB 4 Jan 71R	Int RD Series 2, EXTERIORIZATION & HIGH
			TA, THE INTERIORIZATION RUNDOWN
			REVISED
		HCOB 25 Sep 78 I	Int RD Series 5, QUAD COMMANDS FOR
			INT BUTTONS
		HCOB 24 Sep 78 I	Int RD Series 4, URGENT IMPORTANT
			THE END OF ENDLESS INT REPAIR
			RUNDOWN
		HCOB 26 Jun 78RA 	New Era Dianetics Series 6RA, ROUTINE 
			3RA, ENGRAM RUNNING BY CHAINS
		HCOB 10 Sep 78 	NED HIGH CRIME)

________

INT must be run flawlessly.

It is to be done by a Class IV auditor, skilled in the materials of that level, who is also certificate trained on New Era Dianetics and the running of R3RA.

BECAUSE IT IS MANDATORY THAT:

1. 	COMMANDS OF THE INTERIORIZATION RUNDOWN BE CLEARED EXCELLENTLY FOR THE PC’S UNDERSTANDING,

2. 	THE GOING EARLIER COMMAND BE GIVEN FULLY WITH THE ITEM,

3. 	THE AUDITOR UNDERSTAND FULLY THE THEORY AND COMMANDS HE IS RUNNING.

ALL AUDITORS AND THE C/S OF INTERIORIZATION RUNDOWNS MUST STARRATE WITH CLAY DEMOS ON THE THEORY AND COMMANDS OF THE INT RD.

ALL AUDITORS MUST HAVE AN “OKAY TO AUDIT INT RUNDOWN” FROM THE DIR OF VALIDITY OR THE QUAL SEC BEFORE THEY MAY DO SO.

No auditor may audit a pc on the Interiorization Rundown unless he has passed tough starrate checkouts and excellent clay demos on the materials below, and has an “Okay to Audit Int RD” chit from Qual.

When he has done so, he is qualified and will be able to deliver an Interiorization Rundown to his pc with the exceptional results for which this rundown was intended.

STARRATE CHECKOUTS FOR “OKAY TO AUDIT INT RD”

Auditor’s Name: 	Org:_________________

I attest: 

a) 	I am a Senior Class IV or Class IV Graduate Auditor.

b)	 I am certificate trained on the New Era Dianetics Course and the running of R3RA.

Auditor’s Attest: 	Date:_________________

1. 	The following checkouts are to be done starrate to a pass from the Supervisor or Interne Supervisor.

1. 	CLAY DEMO:

	a) 	Lock	k) 	Interiorization
				(as went in)
	b) 	Secondary
			l) 	The picture
	c) 	Engram		erasing
	
	d) 	Chain	m) 	F/N
	e) 	Picture	n) 	Cognition
	f) 	Solid	o) 	Erasure
	g) 	Erasing	p) 	Postulate
	h) 	Caused	q) 	Postulate off
				= erasure
	i) 	Exteriorization
	j) 	Interiorization
		(as being in)

2.	CLAY DEMO: (per HCOB 4 Jan 71 R)

a) 	Commands for running Int by R3RA, including the going earlier and earlier beginning commands.

3. 	CLAY DEMO: (per HCOB 24 Sep 78 I, Int RD Series 4)

a) 	The End of Endless Int Repair Rundown procedure and commands.

This auditor has done excellent clay demos on all of the above.

SUPERVISOR/INTERNE SUPERVISOR: 	DATE:_________

4. 	STARRATE:

a) 	HCOB 4 Jan 71R, Int RD Series 2, EXT AND HIGH TA, THE INT RD REVISED.

b) 	HCOB 26 Jun 78RA, NED Series 6RA, ROUTINE 3RA, ENGRAM RUNNING BY CHAINS.

c) 	HCOB 24 Sep 78 I, Int RD Series 4, URGENT IMPORTANT END OF ENDLESS INT REPAIR RD.

This auditor has passed tough Narrate checkouts on the above HCOBs.

SUPER/INTERNE SUPER: 	DATE: ________

5. 	This auditor knows his R3RA and Int procedure cold and can apply it.

SUPER/INTERNE SUPER: 	DATE: ________

6. 	This auditor has excellent TRs.

SUPER/INTERNE SUPER: 	DATE: ________

II. 	I attest this auditor has been issued an “OKAY TO AUDIT INT RD” chit.

DIR VALIDITY/QUAL SEC: 	DATE: ________

(Route this form to Course Admin for student’s folder.)

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH:jk/dr 
Copyright © 1971, 1978 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 3 JULY 1971
Remimeo
Franchise
All Auditors
Level III Checksheets
Replaces HCO Bs 22 May 65 and 23 Apr 64,
and cancels HCO B 27 July 65 all on the
same subject.

SCIENTOLOGY III

AUDITING BY LISTS REVISED

(Note: We now F/N everything. We do NOT tell the pc what the meter is doing. This changes “Auditing By Lists” in both respects. We do not say to the pc, “That’s clean” or “That reads”.)

AUDITING BY LISTS

(Reference: HCO B 14 Mar 71, “F/N Everything”)

Use any authorized, published LIST. (Green Form for general review, L1C for ARC Brks, L4B for listed items list errors.)

METHOD 3

Use meter at a sensitivity so meter needle is loose but it is easy to keep needle at “Set”. If sensitivity is too high the needle will be in constant motion as one tries to set the TA. If too low, the instant read will not be visible. 5 is usual for upper grade cases. 16 is usual for lower grade or Dianetic cases.

Have your meter in a position (line of sight) so you can see the list and the needle or you can see the needle and the pc. The meter position is important.

Hold the mimeoed list close beside the meter. Have your worksheet more to the right. Keep record on your worksheet. Mark the pc’s name and date on it. Mark what list it is on the W/S with Time. It remains in the folder stapled to the W/S.

Read the question on the list, note if it reads. Do NOT read it while looking at the pc, do NOT read it to yourself and then say it while looking at the pc. These are the L10 actions and are called Method 6, not Method 3. It is more important to see the pc’s cans than his face as can fiddle can fake or upset reads.

TR 1 must be good so the pc clearly hears it.

You are looking for an INSTANT READ that occurs at the end of the exact last syllable of the question.

If it does not read, mark the list X. If the list is being done through an F/N and the F/N just continues, mark the Question F/N.
If the question reads, do not say “That reads”. Mark the read at once (tick, SF, F, LF, LFBD, R/S), transfer the number of the Q to the W/S and look expectantly at the pc. You can repeat the Q by just saying it again if pc doesn’t begin to talk. He has probably already begun to answer as the Q was live in his bank as noted by the meter.

Take down the pc’s remarks in shortened form on the W/S. Note any TA changes on the W/S.

If the pc’s answer results in an F/N (Cog VGIs sometimes follow, GIs always accompany a real F/N), mark it rapidly on the W/S and say, “Thank you. I would like to indicate your needle is floating.”

Do NOT wait endlessly for the pc to say more. If you do he will go into doubt and find more, also do NOT chop what he is saying. Both are TR errors that are very bad.

If there is no F/N, at the first pause that looks like the pc thinks he has said it, ask for an Earlier Similar_____whatever the question concerned. Do NOT change the Q. Do NOT fail to repeat what the Question is. “Was there an Earlier Similar Restimulation of ‘rejected affinity’?” This is the “E/S” part of it. You do not leave such a Question merely “clean”.

It does not matter now if you look at the pc when you say it or not. But you can look at the pc when you say it.

The pc will answer. If he comes to a “looks like he thinks he said it” and no F/N, you ask the same Q as above.

You ask this Q “Was there an earlier similar______” until you finally get an F/N and GIs. You indicate the F/N.

That is the last of that particular question.

You mark “F/N” on the list and call the next question on the list. You call this and other questions without looking at the pc.

Those that do not read, you X as out.

The next question that reads, you mark it on the list, transfer the question number to the W/S.

Take the pc’s answer.

Follow the above E/S procedure as needed until you get an F/N and GIs for the question. Ack. Indicate and return to the mimeoed list.

You keep this up until you have done the whole list in this fashion.

If you got no read on the list Question but the pc volunteers some answer to an unreading question, do NOT take it up. Just ack and carry on with your mimeoed list.

BELIEVE YOUR METER. Do not take up things that don’t read. Don’t get “hunches”. Don’t let the pc run his own case by answering non-reading items and then the auditor taking them up. Also don’t let a pc “fiddle the cans” to get a false read or to obscure a real one. (Very rare but these two actions have happened.)

BIG WIN

If half way down a prepared list (the last part not yet done) the pc on some question gets a wide F/N, big Cog, VGIs, the auditor is justified in calling the list complete and going to the next C/S action or ending the session.

There are two reasons for this—one, the F/N will usually just persist and can’t be read through and further action will tend to invalidate the win.

The auditor can also carry on to the end of the prepared list if he thinks there may be something else on it.

GF AND METHOD 3

When a GF is taken up Method 3 (item by item, one at a time and F/Ned) it can occur that the TA will go suddenly high. The pc feels he is being repaired, that the clearing up of the first item on the GF handled it and protests. It is the protest that sends the TA up.

This is not true of any other list.

Thus a GF is best done by Method 5 (once through for reads, then the reads handled).

L1C and L4B, L7 and other such lists are best done by Method 3.

The above steps and actions are exactly how you do Auditing by List today. Any earlier data contrary to this is cancelled. Only 2 points change—we F/N everything that reads by E/S or a process to handle (L3B requires processes, not E/S to get an FIN) and we never tell the pc that it read or didn’t read, thus putting his attention on the meter.

We still indicate F/Ns to the pc as a form of completion.

L1C and Method 3 are NOT used on high or very low TAs to get them down or up.

The purpose of these lists is to clean up by-passed charge.

________

An auditor also indicates when he has finished with the list.

An auditor should dummy drill this action both on a doll and bullbait.

________

The action is very successful when precisely done.

                                        	L. RON HUBBARD
                                        	Founder

LRH:nt.rd 
Copyright © 1971 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 14 MARCH 1971R
CORRECTED & REISSUED 25 JULY 1973

Remimeo
All Levels
F/N EVERYTHING

Whenever an auditor gets a read on an item from Ruds or a prepared list (LIB, L3A, L4B, etc, etc) IT MUST BE CARRIED TO AN F/N.

To fail to do so is to leave the pc with by-passed charge.

When a pc has had several reads on various lists which were none of them carried to F/N, it can occur that he will become upset or depressed without any other apparent reason. As one has DONE the lists without F/Ning each item, one now has the mystery of what is wrong?

The error is reading items from Ruds or prepared lists cleaned to no read but not carried to F/N.

This action (amongst many such refinements) is what makes Flag auditing so smooth and indeed makes it Flag Auditing.

When an auditor first tries this he may well think it is impossible.

Yet it is simplicity itself. If you know bank structure you know it is necessary to find an earlier item if something does not release. What has been found as a read on a prepared list would F/N if it were the basic lock. So if it doesn’t F/N, then there is an earlier (or an earlier or an earlier) lock which is preventing it from F/Ning.

So the RULE:

NEVER WALK OFF FROM A READING ITEM ON A RUDIMENT OR A PREPARED REPAIR LIST BEFORE YOU CARRY IT DOWN (EARLIER SIMILAR) TO AN F/N.

Example: ARC Brk reads. Pc says what it is, Auditor does ARCU CDEI. If no F/N, Auditor asks for an earlier similar ARC Brk, gets it, ARCU CDEI, etc until he gets an F/N.

Example: PTP reads. Carry it E/S (earlier similar) until a PTP F/Ns.

Example: L4B: Has an item been denied you? Reads. Answered. No F/N. Is there an earlier similar denied item? Answered. F/N. Go on to next reading item on the list.

Example: GF assessed once through for reads. The next C/S must take every item on it that read, by 2wc or other process, to an F/N.

So there is a much more general rule:

EVERY ITEM THAT READS MUST F/N.

In Dianetics you get the F/N when you run E/S secondaries or engrams to an erasure, F/N, Cog, VGIs.

In Rudiments, every out rud you get a read on is run E/S to F/N.
On a prepared list you take each read to an F/N or E/S to F/N.

On an LX list you run each flow chain to an F/N.

On GF you get by whatever process an F/N.

On Listing by the Laws of Listing and Nulling, your eventual item listed must F/N.

So another rule:

EVERY MAJOR AND MINOR ACTION MUST BE CARRIED TO AN F/N.

There are NO exceptions.

Any exception leaves by-passed charge on the pc.

Also, every F/N is indicated at the conclusion of the action when cog is obtained.

You take too soon an F/N (first twitch) you cut the cognition and leave by-passed charge (a withheld cognition).

I could take any folder and simply write out the ruds and prepared list reading items and then audit the pc and carry each one to F/N and correct every list so disclosed and wind up with a very shining, cool calm pc.

So “Have reading items been left charged?” would be a key question on a case.

Using lists or ruds on high or low TAs that are not meant for high or low TAs will get you reading items that won’t F/N.

So, another rule:

NEVER TRY TO FLY RUDS OR DO LIB ON A HIGH OR LOW TA.

One can talk the TA down (see HCO B on Talking the TA Down).

Or one can assess L4B.

About the only prepared lists one can assess are the new Hi-Lo TA HCO B 13 Mar 71 and possibly a GF+40 once through for biggest read. The biggest read will have a blowdown on it and can possibly be brought to F/N. If this occurs then one also handles all other items that read.

The most frequent errors in all this are:

Not taking a read earlier similar but just checking it and leaving it as “clean”.

Not using suppress and false on items.

And of course leaving a pc thinking things are still charged by failing to indicate the F/N.

Indicating an F/N before Cog.

Not going back through the folder to handle ruds and items that read but were called “clean” or were simply abandoned.

A pc audited under tension of poor TRs has a hard time and does not F/N sometimes, inviting overrun.
The rules then to happy pcs are:

GOOD TRs.

F/N EVERYTHING FOUND ON RUDS AND LISTS.

AUDIT WITH TA IN NORMAL RANGE OR REPAIR IT SO IT IS IN NORMAL RANGE.

	L. RON HUBBARD
	Founder
LRH:mes.nt.rd	
Copyright © 1971, 1973	
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 24 OCTOBER 1976
Remimeo

(LRH ED 257 INT of 1 December 1974
Revised and Reissued as an HCOB)
(Revisions in this type style)

C/S Series 96

DELIVERY REPAIR LISTS

THERE’S NOTHING WRONG WITH YOUR CF, YOUR PC, YOUR STUDENT, STAFF MEMBER OR YOUR OWN DELIVERY THAT A PREPARED LIST WON’T HANDLE.

“ARC Broken CFs,” blown students, demanded refunds, low success stories, withdrawn auditors, ineffective staffs are pretty silly problems to have these days.

Many years ago I developed a system called “Prepared Lists.”

These isolated the trouble the pc was having in auditing without taxing anyone’s imagination and sending the auditor into a figure-figure on the pc.

These prepared lists were assessed on an E-Meter. One took up the biggest read first and then cleaned up all other reads.

Time has gone on. The system of prepared lists has been expanded to include not only pcs but students and staff.

It may have gone overlooked that such lists now include anything that could happen to a pc or student. In other words, prepared lists have become very thorough.

WHO CAN USE

The only reason ever found for prepared lists not working was an auditor’s weak TR 1 and inability to read a meter.

Even this difficulty has been handled by “Qual Okay to Audit” Checksheets.

Before an auditor should be let near a prepared list he should be put through at least six “Okay to Audit” short Checksheets in Qual.

Qual is not fast flow. Things done in Qual are Method 4 Word Cleared and starrated, with all demos and drills. Only if this is done can you have some certainty that a prepared list will read on the pc and that the pc or student will get handled.

These Qual “Okay to Audit” Checksheets are done AFTER a student has been trained and classed as an auditor. The “Okay to Audit” is for auditing in an org whether staff or interne.

The checksheets are:

(1) 	Board Policy Letter 14 Nov 74R Issue I
	QUAL OKAY TO OPERATE AN E-METER

(2) 	Board Policy Letter 14 Nov 74 Issue II
	QUAL OK NO. 2R, QUAL OK TO ASSESS PREPARED LISTS

(3) 	Board Policy Letter 14 Nov 74 Issue III
	QUAL OK NO. 3, QUAL OK TO AUDIT LISTING AND NULLING

(4) 	Board Policy Letter 14 Nov 74 Issue IV
	QUAL OK NO. 4, QUAL OK TO CORRECT LISTING AND NULLING

(5) 	Board Policy Letter 8 Nov 71RB
	QUAL OK NO. 5R, INTERNSHIPS  ELECTRONIC ATTESTATION
	FORM

(6)	Board Policy Letter 20 July 70R Issue III Revised 25 Nov 74
	TWO WAY COMM CHECKSHEET

Only when these have been thoroughly and honestly studied, drilled and done should an auditor be permitted to assess prepared lists on pcs and students.

It takes standard auditor training to handle the points found reading on a list.

CASE SUPERVISING

A C/S who is trained as a C/S must know what lists to use. And he must see to it that his auditors are trained via the above checklists. Otherwise the lists just won’t read and the C/S, the pc and the org are left up the creek!

LOTS of “lists that didn’t read” are found in folders. I used to make a practice of just having them nulled again by an auditor whose metering and TRs were good and THEY READ AND THE CASE RESOLVED.

PC LISTS

1. 	HCO BULLETIN 24 NOVEMBER 1973RB, C/S SERIES 53RJ” SHORT HI-LO TA ASSESSMENT C/S.” This is a famous list. It solved the long long problem of high and low TAs and really solved it. Unfortunately it has a name of being done for high and low TAs. In truth it practically handles the whole repair of any difficult case today! One assesses it Method 5. One handles the reads from the top down. It can also be reassessed several times until it F/Ns on a whole M5 assessment. It is quite remarkable what it will do for a case that has been running badly or is bogged, quite in addition to handling high and low TAs!

2. 	HCO BULLETIN 1 JANUARY 1972RA, “LIX HI-LO TA REVISED.” This is the same list as C/S 53RJ above. It has been brought up to date. It gives the whole question for each subject as in C/S 53RJ and the same handling. It is easier to use on a pc whose attention wanders or who is not very familiar with terms.

3. 	HCO BULLETIN 29 OCTOBER 1971R, “INT RUNDOWN CORRECTION LIST REVISED.” As Interiorization-Exteriorization problems (when they exist) have to be handled before any other thing is handled, an auditor sometimes assesses another list and then finds himself doing this list, “Int” appears on many other lists and when it reads one does this list. One has to go back and complete the original list of course. “Int” problems cause high TA, headaches and general upset. I’ve begun to think after seeing a lot of headache cases that maybe only Int-Ext problems cause headaches! Instead of repairing Int, sometimes auditors will run it again and again. Also Int can go flat to Cog VVGIs on an early flow, even a recall flow. Then if one insists on finishing the Int RD, one has trouble and I mean trouble. So this is a valuable list.

4. 	HCO BULLETIN 15 DECEMBER 1968R, “L4BR” “FOR ASSESSMENT OF ALL LISTING ERRORS.” An out list (meaning one done by Listing and Nulling, not a prepared list) can raise more concentrated hell with a pc than any other single auditing error. The amount of misemotion or illness which a wrong list generates has to be seen to be believed. When a pc is ill after a session or up to 3 days after, always suspect that a listing action done on the pc had an error in it. It MUST be corrected. The prepared list L4BR corrects lists of the Listing and Nulling variety. It can be run on old lists, current lists, general listing. There has been no reason to revise this since 2 June 1972. It really works!

5. 	HCO BULLETIN l9 MARCH 1971, “LIST 1-C.” This is the updated version of the earliest list ever compiled. It is used during sessions at the auditor’s discretion and in other ways. It also prevents some pc from insisting “it’s an ARC Brk” (which never clears) when it’s really a withhold, a common error. It can also be addressed to life. Usually when a session blows up, an L1C is used fast rather than just sit and ack!

6. 	HCO BULLETIN 11 APRIL 1971RA, L3RD “DIANETICS AND INT RD REPAIR LIST.” This is the key list of Dianetic Auditing and is the Dianetic standby in case of trouble. As the Int RD is also Dianetics, while doing it, one uses L3RD for trouble.

7. 	HCO BULLETIN 2 APRIL 1972RB ISSUE II, EXPANDED DIANETICS SERIES 3 RB, “L3 EXD RB.” This is the prepared list for Expanded Dianetics.

8. 	HCO BULLETIN 29 FEBRUARY 1972R, “FALSE TA CHECKLIST.” This was a very important discovery about TAs. One uses this when another list indicates a False TA or one is suspected. Auditors have been known to get so desperate about a pc’s TA that they falsified worksheets. This (and C/S 53RJ) make that totally needless. I’ve seen this change a case from despair to VVVVGIs!

9. 	HCO BULLETIN 16 APRIL 1972, “PTS RD CORRECTION LIST.” It also gives the expected actions of a PTS Rundown. Doing PTS Rundowns without this prepared list handy can be risky.

10. 	HCO POLICY LETTER 7 APRIL 1970RA, “GREEN FORM.” This was the earliest Qual Saint Hill weapon (26 June 65) for case cracking. It is modernized up to 29 Sept 74 in the above issue. Used for general case clean-up particularly on an out rud type pc or when ruds won’t fly. It is not used to handle high or low TA.

11. 	HCO BULLETIN 30 JUNE 1971R, “EXPANDED GF 40RB.” Called “GF 40X” This is the “7 resistive type cases” at the end of the Green Form expanded out. This is how you get those “earlier practices” and other case stoppers. This done well gives a lot of extensive work in Dianetics. It’s lengthy but really pays off. If you were to do a C/S 53RJ Method 5, all handled, and to an F/Ning list and then do a GF 40XRB, all handled, reassessed to an F/Ning list you would ‘‘crack’’ most cases to a point where they ran well.

12.	BOARD TECHNICAL BULLETIN 28 MAY 1974R, “FULL ASSIST CHECKLIST FOR INJURY AND ILLNESS.” While you don’t put the pc on the cans for this one, you mark it as to the state the pc is in and it says what you do for illness and injury. This one, done correctly, is how the minister runs the medico out of business.

STUDENT LISTS

13. 	HCO BULLETIN 15 NOVEMBER 1973R, “FEAR OF PEOPLE LIST—R.” This is for the handling of timid tech staff who back off from handling rough pcs.

14. 	HCO BULLETIN 15 NOVEMBER 1974, “STUDENT REHABILITATION LIST.” This is the one that gets a bogged student sailing, gets a blown student back, gets an auditor back auditing. It even cures the revolutionary student! This is the master list for students—even students in grammar schools and colleges! A real winner.

15. 	BOARD TECHNICAL BULLETIN  27 MARCH 1972R  ISSUE I, “STUDENT CORRECTION LIST, STUDY CORR LIST- I .” A list for correcting students on course.

STAFF LISTS

16. 	HCO BULLETIN 27 MARCH 1972R ISSUE II, “COURSE SUPERVISOR CORRECTION LIST, STUDY CORR LIST 2R.” This is to get the Course Supervisor going well.

17. 	HCO BULLETIN 27 MARCH 1972RA ISSUE III, “AUDITOR CORRECTION LIST, STUDY CORR LIST 3.” This one corrects Auditors who are having a rough time.

18. 	BOARD TECHNICAL BULLETIN 27 MARCH 1972RA ISSUE IV, “CASE SUPERVISOR CORRECTION LIST, STUDY CORR LIST 4.” This one corrects Case Supervisors, gets them back on the rails.

19. 	BOARD TECHNICAL BULLETIN 27 MARCH 1972RC ISSUE V, “EXECUTIVE CORRECTION LIST, STUDY CORR LIST 5.” This prepared list locates an executive’s troubles and indicates handling.

20. 	BOARD TECHNICAL BULLETIN 4 FEBRUARY 1972RD, “STUDY SERIES 7.” A real long workout for a person who won’t study or who is having real trouble on a course. Goes after it in depth. Can be used as a second list to Student Rehab list above or by itself.

21. 	HCO BULLETIN 21 JULY 1971RD, WORD CLEARING SERIES 35RD, “WORD CLEARING CORRECTION LIST REVISED.” Usually written “WCCL.” This is the famous list that goes with Method 1 Word Clearing or with any Word Clearing bog. Also corrects high and low TA WHEN it occurs in a Word Clearing session. This is the Word Clearer’s friendly friend.

22. 	HCO POLICY LETTER 9 APRIL 1972, “ETHICS, CORRECT DANGER CONDITION HANDLING.” Locates the trouble area that got him into a Danger Condition. Goes with the famous “3 May P/L” HCO PL 3 May 1972.

23. 	HCO POLICY LETTER 13 MARCH 1972, “ESTABLISHMENT OFFICER SERIES NO. 5.” An invaluable text and list for PRODUCT CLEARING. It’s a list of what you do to clear products. From it a prepared list can be made.

24. 	HCO POLICY LETTER 23 MARCH 1972, ESTABLISHMENT OFFICER SERIES 11, “FULL PRODUCT CLEARING LONG FORM.”

25. 	HCO POLICY LETTER 12 JUNE 1972, DATA SERIES 26, ESTO SERIES 18. A list you assess to locate trouble an evaluator might be having. Also for slow evaluators or slow students on a Data Series Course.

26. 	HCO BULLETIN 28 AUGUST 1970RA, “HC OUT-POINT—PLUS-POINT LISTS RA.” This is a prepared list that locates the outpoints in a person’s own thinking. When people can’t seem to evaluate (or think brightly) this list will do wonders. Some Data Series Course students make no progress at all until they are assessed on this list and handled.

27. 	HCO BULLETIN 2 DECEMBER 1974, “DYNAMIC SORT OUT ASSESSMENT.” (Revised from BTB 4 Dec 71 Issue II, Replacing HCOB 4 Dec 71 Issue II R-1C Assessment by Dynamics.) This gets those dynamics that are charged and handles them. Increases social personality and even can shift valences.

WORD LISTS
FOR PREPARED LISTS

Nearly every prepared list has all its words on a separate sheet, ready for word clearing on the pc. All the words on a list are cleared on a pc without repeating the same word or asking the list question. Such lists are issued for auditor convenience.

A list of these word lists is being issued as HCOB I Dec 74 so that you can match them to the prepared lists in this Bulletin.

OTHER LISTS

There is a whole package of processing, mainly by prepared lists, in Integrity Processing, issued as its own series and now being reissued.

There are great Solo Lists for Solo Repair used on Advance Courses.

And from time to time when a need for prepared list is found new ones will be issued on different subjects.
One can REPAIR a pc or student or staff member. One can also FORWARD a case into new areas with other prepared lists.

MIMEO

Some orgs backlog their mimeos.

The AVAILABILITY of lists to auditors is something which should NOT be neglected. It is highly uneconomical as one loses re-signs and students and staff when prepared lists are in non-existence in an org or even short supply.

Tech is the atomic fuel an org runs on.

KEEP PREPARED LISTS IN SUPPLY FOR USE.

TRANSLATED ISSUES

In non-English speaking orgs lists must be very carefully translated and mimeoed for use. In such orgs, more than any others, great care must be taken to have and use lists as they keep tech straight where it tends to go hearsay and verbal.

-----------

So, that’s quite an array of prepared lists, isn’t it?

If they are not in full use in your org don’t wonder about your Delivery Stats Why. Or your org and CF problems. It’s a lack of full use of this tech.

Hidden in these prepared lists is a wealth of tech that explodes into wins for your org, your CF, your pcs and students.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

All revisions by
Materials Chief FB

As approved by
L. Ron Hubbard

LRH:RS.nt	
Copyright © 1976	
by L. Ron Hubbard	
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 10 JUNE 1971
Issue I

Remimeo

C/S Series 44R

C/S RULES

PROGRAMMING FROM PREPARED LISTS

There are many vital prepared lists.

King of these is the Green Form. The additional No. 40 items are the original Seven Resistive Cases. The best way to do a GF + 40 is Method 5 (once through), lengths of reads and BDs marked and C/S to then write a C/S for it.

Hi-Lo TA is also such a list, also done Method 5.

Any such prepared list can be done Method 5 and the C/S to then write a C/S.

But L4B (Lists correction), L3B (Dianetic errors) and L1C (ARC Brks and bypassed charge) are usually done Method 3 (auditor assesses to a read, gets the action done, and/or earlier similar to an F/N, not going on until his action has resulted in an F/N and then going on to complete handling and F/Ning each read he gets).

When the C/S has a list assessed Method 5 he expects usually to get it back with the reads and then write the C/S for it. Sometimes he asks for a GF + 40 and a Hi-Lo TA both to be done Method 5.

Now the question comes up, which reads does the C/S write up to be handled first? And second? And third? Etc. In other words how does he arrange the C/S the auditor is to do now? What sequence are the items handled in?

These rules apply:

Handle an Out Int RD first.

Handle anything connected with “Lists” (meaning Listing and Nulling Lists) first if Int isn’t out. Like “Listed past right item,” reads. The C/S would get that handled FIRST. Always handle list errors first. And usually do an L4B additionally, Auditor to handle. A pc can get sick after a listing error and you can’t get auditing done when lists are out.

Doesn’t want auditing, why, is then handled if it read.

Next C/S to handle anything to do with rudiments. ARC Brks, PTPs and W/Hs take precedence in that order.

(Listing errors are first, before ARC Brks because an apparent ARC Break after a listing error can only be handled by getting the charge off the list.)

Anything that looks like a withhold comes next.

After that one just takes the lengths or BD of reads. Take the biggest reads before you take the smaller ones, once you have C/Sed for Lists, doesn’t want auditing and Ruds and evident other withholds.

The only confusion that one can get into is a very high TA. But List errors can cause high TAs. Next in frequency is withholds.

Never C/S to take a TA down with an ARC Brk rud or an L1C. Never.

You can C/S to “talk a TA down” only when there are no list errors or withholds reading on a GF.

Of course an Interiorization Rundown error is a primary target. But you don’t have that once it’s handled. You will get a soaring TA if Int is out. L3B is a potent tool to order for Int outnesses, the auditor handling as he goes, Method 3.

-------------

So the above gives you the rules by which you C/S from assessed prepared lists.

Basically—when Int is out, auditing will drive the TA up.

When lists are out nothing will handle but lists and L1C won’t nor will ruds.

When ruds are out nothing else will straighten up and you mustn’t order auditors to audit with out ruds.

Doesn’t want auditing can come from a bad L & N list. Or out Int. Or out ruds. Previous bad auditing can be cured by L1C on previous bad auditing. The craziest out auditing I ever ran into was an auditor using reads and F/Ns when there were none and failing to take up or flatten reads he did get. So there can be variations on bad auditing and there can be, to our shame, false auditing reports. The best C/S is to find what auditor and find out what the error was. Bad TRs on a poor TR Course where the pc was a student (False passes and invalidated wins) can also cause “doesn’t want auditing”.

“Protest” is a frequent reason for high TA and is a cousin to “doesn’t want auditing” and is handled by checking “Lists” for read and doing an L4B if it reads or finding the out ruds or other BPC as in L1C.

-------------

As there are so many combinations of reading items from prepared lists, you have to C/S according to these general principles.

These rules serve as a steadying guide that you’ll find win for you.

LRH:sb.rd	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1971	Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 24 NOVEMBER 1973RE
REVISED 30 OCTOBER 1978
Cl IV Grad	
Chksht
Cl VI Chksht	(Revisions in this type style)
C/Ses
Cl IV Grad and
above Auditors
C/S SERIES 53RL
(Long Form)

The C/S Series 53 Long Form is used to get a TA up or down into normal range or to correct case outnesses. It is exactly the same as the C/S Series 53 Short Form except that it puts the items into full questions so a pc relatively new to auditing can understand what is being asked.

Assess this list Method 5 and handle reads in the order they occur on the list.

HCOB 30 Oat 78, C/S SERIES 53, USE OF contains data vital to the proper use of the C/S Series 53.

PC NAME	DATE________________

A. 	Interiorized into			Are you withholding	_____
	something?	_____		anything?
	Go in?	_____		Is there some sort of
	Went in?	_____		withhold?	_____
	Put in?	_____		Is there something
	Want to go in?	_____		you’re not saying?	_____
	Can’t get in?	_____		Has someone said you had
	Can’t go in?	_____		a withhold when you
	Want to get out?	_____		didn’t?	_____
	Kicked out of spaces?	_____		Did you have to get the
	Being trapped a	_____		same withhold off more
	Forced in?	_____		than once?	_____
	Pulled in?	_____		Have you committed any
B. 	Have there been list			overts?	_____
	errors?	_____		Have you been audited
	Have you had an over-			over out-rudiments?	_____
	listed list?	_____		Do you feel sad?	_____
	Have you been given			Do you feel rushed?	_____
	any wrong items?	_____		Are you upset?	_____
	Have you felt upset			Are you tired?	_____
	with giving items to			Deadness?	_____
	the auditor?	_____		Unconsciousness?	_____
	Have you been given a			Do you feel like you
	wrong date?	_____		can’t get it?	_____
	Have you found a wrong			Are you protesting
	location?	_____		anything?	_____
	Have you been given a			Is there something you
	wrong Why?	_____		don’t like?	_____
	Have you been given a		D. 	Have you taken drugs?	_____
	wrong indication?	_____		Have you taken LSD?	_____
	Have you been given a			Have you drunk alcohol?	_____
	wrong PTS item?	_____		Have you smoked pot?	_____
C. 	Do you have an ARC			Have you taken medicine?	_____
	break?	_____	E. 	Is there an engram in
	Do you have a problem?	_____		restimulation?	_____
	Has the same engram been			Did you feel like items
	run twice?	_____		didn’t really read?	_____
	Can’t you see engrams			Have there been false
	too well?	_____		reads?	_____
	When you look for			Have you had bad
	incidents is it			auditing?	_____
	invisible?	_____		Are there any incomplete
	When you look for inc-			actions?	_____
	dents is it all black?	_____		Has there been any
	Have you experienced a			invalidation?	_____
	loss?	_____		Has there been any
	Have you lost something?	_____		evaluation?	_____
F. 	Has the same thing been			Couldn’t you get
	run twice?	_____		auditing?	_____
	Has the same action			Have actions been
	been done by another			interrupted?	_____
	auditor?	_____	K. 	Is there something you
G. 	Are you doing something			can’t have?	_____
	with your mind between			Is your havingness low?
	sessions?	_____	L. 	Are you PTS?	_____
	Are you involved in			Do you feel suppressed?	_____
	some other practice?	_____	M.	Has something gone on
H. 	Have there been Word			too long?	_____
	Clearing errors?	_____		Have you been audited
	Is there a misunder-			past a release point?	_____
	stood word?	_____		Have you gone past
	Have there been mis-			Dianetic Clear?	_____
	understoods in session?	_____		Has something been	
	Have there been any			overrun?	_____
	study errors?	_____		Has the auditor kept on
I. 	Do you have a false TA?	_____		going?	_____
	Have you used the wrong			Have you been over
	sized cans?	_____		repaired?	_____
	Do your hands get tired?	_____		Are you puzzled why the
	Are your hands dry?	_____		auditor keeps on going?	_____
	Are your hands wet?	_____		Are there stops?	_____
	Do you loosen the can		N. 	Is there something else
	grip?	_____		wrong?	_____
	Are you using the wrong			Are you physically ill?	_____
	cream?	_____	O. 	Are we repairing a TA
J. 	Is the auditor over-			that isn’t high?	_____
	whelming?	_____		Are we repairing a TA
	Couldn’t you hear the			that isn’t low?	_____
	auditor?	_____		Has the meter been
	Couldn’t you understand			faulty?	_____
	what was being said?	_____		Is there nothing wrong?	_____
	Couldn’t you understand		P. 	Have there been false
	what was being done?	_____		Exam Reports?	_____
	Do you feel attacked?	_____		Did you have to wait at
	Has there been some-			exams?	_____
	thing wrong with F/Ns?	_____		Have you been upset by
	Have F/Ns been overrun?	_____		the Examiner?	_____
	Have F/Ns been missed?	_____
A. 	If A or any of the A Group reads on ANY pc (including Dianetic Clears, Clears, OTs) who has had an Int RD, do an Int RD Correction List Revised (HCOB 29 Oct BRA) and handle the reads. If Int correction has already been done on the pc get an FES on the Int RD AND its corrections. When all errors are corrected, the C/S may order the End of Endless Int Repair RD per Int RD Series 4.

If the pc is Clear, Dianetic C/ear or OT and has not had an Int RD, do the End of Endless Int Repair RD. Do not run any Dianetics.

Otherwise, if the pc has never had an Int RD, give him a standard Int RD per Int RD Series 2.

WHEN DOING AN INT HANDLING RUN ONLY THE INT BUTTONS GIVEN ON THE INT RD SERIES HCOBs. Note on the assessment which button(s) have just read on the C/S 53. Other items in the A Group are designed to detect out-Int, but don’t embrace the earlier beginning, so do NOT run these.

B. 	If any of these read, do an L4BRA on the earliest lists you can find that have not been corrected. Lacking these, do an L4BRA in general. You can go over an L4BRA several times handling each read to F/N until the whole L4BRA gives nothing but F/Ns. Handle a Wrong Why or Wrong Indication or Wrong PTS item per C/S Series 78.

C. 	Any reading item must be F/Ned. Use standard handlings on rudiments questions. On “Out-Ruds” find which rud and handle. “Feel Sad” = ARC break of Long Duration so handle the ARC break. If “Deadness” or “Unconsciousness” read 2WC to F/N (E/S if necessary) and then program for the Personal Revival Rundown.

D. 	2WC to F/N. Do a Drug RD Repair List if the pc has had his Drug RD. (HCOB 19 Sep 78 II) L3RF if needed. Advance Program to handle all reading drugs as soon as possible per NED Series 9R. (The above handling does not apply to Clears and OTs. On these, indicate the read. See HCOB 30 Oct 78, C/S SERIES 53, USE OF for further data on the handling of Dianetic questions which are reading on Clears & OTs.)

E. 	If any of these read, do a L3RF and handle per the instructions. (On Clears and OTs simply indicate the read. Don’t run any engrams or seek further to repair. See HCOB 30 Oct 78, C/S SERIES 53, USE OF.)

F. 	Clean up any protest and inval and rehab to F/N.

G. 	Find out what it is. If yogi or mystic exercises or some such 2WC E/S it to first time done, find out what upset had occurred before that and if TA now down do L1C on that period of pc’s life.

H. 	If Word Clearing, do a Word Clearing Correction List, handle all reads. If study errors, 2WC E/S to F/N, and add a Study Correction List to the pc’s program.

I. 	False TA is wrong cans or other error. Use HCOB 12 Nov 71RA, 15 Feb 72R, 18 Feb 72R, 21 Jan 77RA, HCOB 23 Nov 73RB, all on false TA. Then clean up the bypassed charge with (1) Assess for best read (a) TA worries (b) F/N worries. (2) Then 2WC times he was worried about (item) E/S to F/N. (3) Rehab any overruns due to false TA obscuring F/Ns.

J. 	These are auditor errors. Low TA is generally caused by overwhelming TRs and incomplete actions. A high TA can be caused by an auditor overrunning F/Ns or failing to call them. Or trying to assess through an F/N and mistaking an F/N right swing for a read. An F/N can be obscured and mistaken for a read if sensitivity too high. These items are all 2WC E/S to F/N. Auditors who made them need cramming badly or retread. Rehab F/Ns that have been missed.

K. 	Can’t have or Hav. Find correct Havingness Process and remedy.

L. 	2WC to F/N. C/S to program as needed for further PTS handling.

M. 	Find out what. Clean up any protest. Rehab to F/N or Date/Locate. On “Have you gone past Dianetic C/ear?” 2WC to F/N. Return to C/S. A qualified C/S who has fully checked out on the materials must adjudicate whether this state has been attained before the preclear may attest to Dianetic C/ear.

N. 	2WC to find what. Note BD item. If BD item covered by one of these categories handle per instructions. If not just 2WC to F/N and get further C/S instructions for handling if necessary.

O. 	Get pc to tell you about it briefly. If correct then indicate to F/N. Go E/S and indicate it if no F/N on first. If false TA handle per 1 above.

P. 	Indicate and 2WC to F/N.

Per HCOB 30 October 1978, C/S SERIES 53, USE OF, the order in which reads are to be taken up is built into the C/S 53 itself. You simply start at the top of the list and take up and handle to F/N each read as you come to it.

L. RON HUBBARD 
Founder 

LRH: dr 
Copyright © 1973, 1975, 1977,1978 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 24 NOVEMBER 1973RD
REVISED 30 OCTOBER 1978
Cl IV Grad Chksht
Cl VI Chksht	(Revisions in this type style)
C/Ses
Cl IV Grad & above
Auditors
C/S Series 53RL SF
(Short Form)

SHORT HI-LO TA ASSESSMENT C/S

The C/S Series 53 Short Form is the basic prepared list used by auditors to get a TA up or down into normal range or to correct case outnesses. A pc who is relatively new to auditing should be assessed on the C/S Series 53 Long Form, which puts the items into full questions.

Assess this list Method 5 and handle reads in the order they occur on the list.

HCOB 30 Oct 78, C/S SERIES 53, USE OF contains data vital to the proper use of the C/S Series 53 lists.

PC NAME	DATE________________

A. 	Interiorized into something	_____		Tired	_____
	Go in	_____		Deadness	_____
	Went in	_____		Unconsciousness	_____
	Put in	_____		Can’t get it	_____
	Want to go in	_____		Protest	_____
	Can’t get in	_____		Don’t like it	_____
	Can’t go in		D. 	Drugs	_____
	Want to get out	_____	LSD	_____
	Kicked out of spaces	_____		Alcohol	_____
	Being trapped	_____		Pot	_____
	Forced in	_____		Medicine
	Pulled in	_____	E. 	Engram in restimulation	_____
B. 	List errors	_____		Same engram run twice	_____
	Overlisting	_____		Can’t see engrams too well	_____
	Wrong items	_____		Invisible	_____
	Upset with giving items to	_____		Black	_____
	auditor	_____		Loss	_____
	Wrong date	_____		Lost	_____
	Wrong location	_____	F. 	Same thing run twice	_____
	Wrong Why	_____		Same action done by another
	Wrong indication	_____		auditor	_____
	Wrong PTS item	_____	G. 	Doing something with mind
C. 	ARC break	_____		between sessions	_____
	Problem	_____		Some other practice	_____
	Withholding something	_____	H. 	Word Clearing errors	_____
	Some sort of withhold	_____		Misunderstood words	_____
	Not saying	_____		Misunderstoods in session	_____
	False withhold	_____		Study errors	_____
	Withholds gotten off more		I. 	False TA	_____
	than once	_____		Wrong sized cans	_____
	Overts	_____		Tired hands	_____
	Audited over out-ruds	_____		Dry hands	_____
	Sad	_____		Wet hands	_____
	Rushed	_____		Loosens can grip	_____
	Upset	_____		Wrong hand cream	_____
J. 	Auditor overwhelming	_____	L. 	PTS	_____
	Couldn’t hear auditor	_____		Suppressed	_____
	Couldn’t understand what was	M. 	Something went on too long 	_____
	being said	_____		Went on by a release point	_____
	Couldn’t understand what was		Went on past Dianetic Clear 	_____
	being done	_____		Overrun	_____
	Feel attacked	_____		Auditor kept on going	_____
	Something wrong with F/Ns 	_____		Over-repair	_____
	Overrun F/Ns	_____		Puzzled why auditor keeps on _____
	Missed F/N	_____		Stops	_____
	Items really didn’t read	_____	N. 	Something else	_____
	False reads	_____		Physically ill	_____
	Bad auditing	_____	O. 	Repairing a TA that isn’t high _____
	Incomplete actions	_____		Repairing a TA that isn’t low	_____
	Invalidation	_____		Faulty meter	_____
	Evaluation	_____		Nothing wrong
	Couldn’t get auditing	_____	P. 	False Exam Report	_____
	Interruptions	_____		Waited at Exam	_____
K. 	Can’t have	_____		Upset by Examiner	_____
	Low havingness	_____

A. 	If A or any of the A Group reads on ANY pc (including Dianetic Clear, Clear or OT) who has had an Int RD, do an Int RD Correction List Revised (HCOB 29 Oct 71RA) and handle the reads. If Int correction has already been done on the pc get an FES on the Int RD AND its corrections. When all errors are corrected, the C/S may order the End of Endless Int Repair RD per Int RD Series 4.

	If the pc is C/ear, Dianetic C/ear or OT and has not had an Int RD, do the End of Endless Int Repair RD. Do not run any Dianetics.

	Otherwise, if the pc has never had an Int RD, give him a standard Int RD per Int RD Series 2.

	WHEN DOING AN INT HANDLING RUN ONLY THE INT BUTTONS GIVEN ON THE INT RD SERIES HCOBs. Note on the assessment which button(s) have just read on the C/S 53. Other items in the A Group are designed to detect out-Int, but don’t embrace the earlier beginning, so do NOT run these.

B. 	If any of these read, do an L4BRA on the earliest lists you can find that have not been corrected. Lacking these, do an L4BRA in general. You can go over an L4BRA several times handling each read to F/N until the whole L4BRA gives nothing but F/Ns. Handle a Wrong Why or Wrong Indication or Wrong PTS item per C/S Series 78.

C. 	Any reading item must be F/Ned. Use standard handlings on rudiments questions. On “Out-Ruds” find which rud and handle. “Feel Sad” = ARC break of long duration so handle the ARC break. If “Deadness” or “Unconsciousness” read 2WC to F/N (E/S if necessary) and then program for the Personal Revival Rundown.

D. 	2WC to F/N. Do a Drug RD Repair List if the pc has had his Drug RD. (HCOB 19 Sep 78 II) L3RF if needed. Advance Program to handle all reading drugs as soon as possible per NED Series 9R. (The above handling does not apply to Clears and OTs. On these, indicate the read. See HCOB 30 Oct 78, C/S SERIES 53, USE OF for further data on the handling of Dianetic questions which are reading on Clears and OTs.)
E. 	If any of these read, do an L3RF and handle per the instructions. (On Clears and OTs simply indicate the read. Don’t run any engrams or seek further to repair. See HCOB 30 Oct 78, C/S SERIES 53, USE OF.)

F. 	Clean up any protest and inval and rehab to F/N.

G. 	Find out what it is. If yogi or mystic exercises or some such 2WC E/S it to first time done, find out what upset had occurred before that and if TA now down do L1C on that period of pc’s life.

H. 	If Word Clearing, do a Word Clearing Correction List, handle all reads. If study errors, 2WC E/S to F/N, and add a Study Correction List to the pc’s program.

I. 	False TA is wrong cans or other error. Use HCOBs 12 Nov 71RA, 15 Feb 72R, 18 Feb 72R, 21 Jan 77RA, HCOB 23 Nov 73RB, all on false TA. Then clean up the bypassed charge with (1) Assess for best read (a) TA worries (b) F/N worries. (2) Then 2WC times he was worried about (item) E/S to F/N. (3) Rehab any overruns due to false TA obscuring F/Ns.

J. 	These are auditor errors. Low TA is generally caused by overwhelming TRs and incomplete actions. A high TA can be caused by an auditor overrunning F/Ns or failing to call them. Or trying to assess through an F/N and mistaking an F/N right swing for a read. An F/N can be obscured and mistaken for a read if sensitivity too high. These items are all 2WC E/S to F/N. Auditors who made them need cramming badly or retread. Rehab F/Ns that have been missed.

K. 	Can’t have or Hav. Find correct Havingness Process and remedy.

L. 	2WC to F/N. C/S to program as needed for further PTS handling.

M. 	Find out what. Clean up any protest. Rehab to F/N or Date/Locate. On “Went on past Dianetic Clear” 2WC to F/N. Return to C/S. A qualified C/S who has fully checked out on the materials must adjudicate whether this state has been attained before the preclear may attest to Dianetic Clear.

N. 	2WC to find what. Note BD item. If BD item covered by one of these categories handle per instructions. If not just 2WC to F/N and get further C/S instructions for handling if necessary.

O. 	Get pc to tell you about it briefly. If correct then indicate to F/N. Go E/S and indicate it if no F/N on first. If false TA handle per 1 above.

P. 	Indicate and 2WC to F/N.

	Per HCOB 30 October 1978, C/S SERIES 53, USE OF, the order in which reads are to be taken up is built into the C/S 53 itself. You simply start at the top of the list and take up and handle to F/N each read as you come to it.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH:dr 
Copyright © 1973, 1978 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 30 OCTOBER 1978

Class IV Grad
Checksheet
Class VI
Checksheet
C/Ses
Class IV Grad
& above
Auditors
C/S SERIES 53,
USE OF

The C/S Series 53 Short Form is the basic prepared list used by auditors to get a TA up or down into normal range or to correct case outnesses. It contains every element that could be wrong with the mind. It is written the way it is because we just want to know if a subject reads in the pc’s mind, and if so you handle it to F/N.

The C/S Series 53 Long Form is exactly the same as the short form except that it puts the items into full questions so that a less educated pc can understand what is being asked. The questions actually limit its use a bit, but are needed with uneducated pcs. The limit comes about through making the questions a bit too specific whereas the general questions of the short form don’t say to what they apply so are less limited.

Both the short form and the long form are assessed Method 5. (This means going down the list, calling off the items or questions to the pc, watching the meter and marking any tick, small fall, fall, long fall, long fall blowdown (to what TA). Do not take up instant F/Ns. You can program instant F/Ns, but not off a C/S 53.

The order the reads must be taken up is built into the list itself. You can’t audit a case on anything if Int is out. Auditing must be very limited if a list is out. If you audit over an ARC break very long the pc will go into a sad effect. If you audit over a problem the pc won’t make case gain. If you audit over a withhold the pc will get mad at you. If you look at this and compare it to the C/S 53 you will see that the list itself is built on a declining order of urgency. It is true of the remaining items on the list.

There are two ways of using a C/S 53. The first is to simply assess it and indicate the largest read. This is a sort of brushoff but is very useful in handling blown students or pcs, will get off charge and get them back into the org or more comfortable. The other way is its proper use in session. You simply start at the first read and handle it. Go to the next read and handle it, etc. Note that this is at variance with the general handling of prepared lists where you simply take the largest read and next largest read and so forth.

That an item reads, with the exception of Int, does not mean you have to do a full rundown at that point. You just have to F/N it. If further actions are needed to take an item to full handling, get it onto the pc’s Advance Program. (This includes drug handling, etc. but not, as I’ve said, Int. If Int reads, you handle it fully because no auditing can take place over out-Int. If he has already had a full Int Rd you would run the End of Endless Int Repair Rundown. If he or she is already Clear or OT and has not had an Int RD you would run the End of Endless Int Repair Rundown as the primary action.)

The object of the C/S 53 is to key out things that are bothering the pc and get anything you found on the list to an F/N. That something read (except Int) does not mean the auditor doing the C/S 53 must at once run up 110 hours of auditing before he can finish the C/S 53 to an F/Ning list. Auditors who don’t realize this can get stuck in on a C/S 53 mostly because they misconceive a C/S 53 to be wholly a case analysis list. Its primary purpose is to get the case rolling so you can do something else that is scheduled on the pc’s program. Because it can be made to serve as a case analysis and is sometimes called for by a C/S to help him do a repair or advance program or to confirm it, sometimes misleads the auditor into believing he is not supposed to F/N the list.

I have even used a C/S 53 in a D of P interview when the pc wasn’t speaking up. Then by getting the reads I could program the pc and unless it was Int reading I would conclude the interview simply by indicating the largest read which would get me my F/N and let the pc go away happy while we really got to work on him in the C/S department.

So the C/S 53 is a child of many uses as it does after all, contain all the elements known to us that bring about case foul-ups.

CLEARS AND OTS

Sections D and E of the C/S 53 can be assessed on Clears and OTs and Dianetic Clears. However do NOT engage in any activity that brings about further engram running. The correct way to handle Clears and OTs if you get a read in Section D is indicate and let him tell you about it if he wishes, to get an F/N. On Section E you can do an L3RF but you must not do more than indicate the item. You must NOT engage in engram running. (Ref: HCOB 12 Sep 78, DIANETICS FORBIDDEN ON CLEARS AND OTs)

You realize of course that LSD and some other drugs can apparently stay in the physiological body and release themselves now and then. If a Clear, OT or Dianetic Clear got a read on Section D (drugs, etc.) and it didn’t clear up easily you would program the person for a Sweat Program and even Objectives. You would not however, do any engram running on the drugs. Even Recalls might be a bit dicey. The Sweat Program and Objectives would however handle, if you got into the goofy situation of heavy or persistent Section D reads on a Clear, OT or Dianetic Clear. It would not be very usual but you better know about it.

On Section E (engrams and masses, etc.) if you got reads on a Clear, OT or Dianetic Clear you could indicate them and if they didn’t clear to F/N you could do an L3RF, remembering that the instructions on the L3RF handlings do not apply. Your actions as an auditor would simply be to indicate the read and you would probably get your F/N, providing of course your read wasn’t false. The way to program a persistent read on this would be to get the person up to OT I, II and III fast. And then program NED for OTs. But whatever you do don’t try to run these reads out with Dianetics.

The rest of the C/S 53 (except D and E as above) is quite valid on Clears, OTs and Dianetic Clears as it is mostly concerned with think, environment and practices.

F/Ning A C/S 53

Unless you run into the necessity to do an Int handling or you goof or get false reads you can F/N a whole C/S 53 rather rapidly.

C/S 53 TO F/Ning LIST

Getting a C/S 53 to an F/Ning list is done by Method 5ing it, handling any Int RD necessary and handling the rest of the items, each to F/N.

You then Method 5 the whole C/S 53 again. You may pick up an additional read or two. You F/N these. Hopefully, if Int is now handled properly, if it did read in the first place, it won’t read again. But if it does, you have the End of Endless Int Repair RD which if done already may not have been carried to EP so you simply get it carried to EP, which is an F/Ning Int button list.

You then Method 5 the C/S 53 again. You will probably get an F/Ning assessment throughout. If you don’t you simply Method 5 it again.

The eventual EP of getting a prepared list to F/N will occur unless the meter, the auditor’s metering or TRs, or use of the list are badly out. The thing to do in that event is to get another auditor or get liberally crammed or retreaded, as frankly, F/Ning a C/S 53 is a piece of cake.

F/Ning a C/S 53 to F/Ning list is relatively easy to do and can produce a remarkable resurgence of case. It’s an easy and simple way to do a set-up for a major rundown.

BUG

Some pcs, particularly those who have a false TA have gotten so bugged by C/S 53s being done on them that when they see an auditor reach for one, they react adversely.

The way to handle this is 2WC the C/S 53 itself, E/S, taking the F/Ns and ignore ing the TA position and then do a full false TA handling on the pc per HCOB 21 Jan 77RA, FALSE TA CHECKLIST.

In essence what you have discovered is the biggest reading item of all without even looking at your meter.

No further repair is needed than the above as a C/S 53 will now work like a clock and can be done smoothly and correctly. It will even pick up the latent charge of “Endless C/S 53s” if you do the above.

The C/S 53 Series is a wonderful tool and like any tool can be well handled or mishandled.

Part of its proper use is understanding exactly what it is and handling it with a good meter, good metering, and good TRs.

There is no other document in history that has rounded up so completely the factors which can be wrong with the mind. And also put it, in its short form, on one sheet of paper.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH:dr 
Copyright © 1978 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 13 DECEMBER 1978R
REVISED 24 SEPTEMBER 1979
Remimeo
(Revisions in this type style)

PC SET-UPS AND C/S 53

(Ref: C/S Series 1- 10)

The original issue of this HCOB stated “A pc set-up before a major action must include a C/S 53RL to F/Ning list.” It then named various Flag-only rundowns. It was not intended for distribution to orgs outside Flag, and has been misimplemented to create a shortage of pcs for NED Course students and internes and Class IV Course students and interned by requiring that these must not audit pcs who have not first had a C/S 53 to F/Ning list. But every major action does not require a C/S 53 to F/Ning list as a set-up. Therefore this clarification is issued.

A pa must be set up before a major action. What this set-up consists of is covered in C/S Series 1 - 10. It does not have to include a C/S 53 to F/Ning list.

A C/S 53 to F/Ning list is the most thorough way to set up a case, or to repair a case who has had rough auditing. This is because the C/S 53 is a masterpiece in that it contains everything that could be wrong with the mind. A pc who has had much auditing, especially if any of the auditing was not skillfully delivered, will get a remarkable case resurgence from a C/S 53 done to F/Ning list.

But a pa who is already flying, or who has not had much auditing, does not require a C/S 53 to F/Ning list and possibly would not even understand many of the C/S 53 lines. It does not have to be done before every major action. To do so would violate the rules of C/Sing and programming of cases, and is an arbitrary. It is very poor show to enter or use arbitraries as these prevent getting any tech done at all! And not requiring a C/S 53 to F/Ning list does not mean that you can audit a pc who is not set up.

Follow the rules of programming and C/Sing cases already very adequately covered in the C/S Series, especially in C/S Series 1 - 10. It is very easy to do.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

As assisted by
Snr C/S Int

LRH:DM:gal
Copyright © 1978, 1979
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 25 NOVEMBER 1971
Issue II
REISSUED 21 SEPTEMBER 1974
Remimeo	(Only change is signature)
GF-40X
Checksheet

(HCO Bulletin of 23 September 1968, a Class VIII 
Confidential Bulletin edited and reissued for informa-	
tion of Auditors handling GF-40.
NOTE: This does not cancel or replace HCOB 23
Sept 1968 which contains further vital data for the
Class VIII Auditor.)

RESISTIVE CASES

FORMER THERAPY

Hypnotism, “psycho” analysis, “psychiatry” and other implant type therapies often key in and jam the track.

These characters here, on any other planet and on the whole track dramatize implanting. The “therapy” involved would be a temporary relief brought by suggestion.

The wrong data of the “science” itself operates as a whole track lie. Getting well or able depends on establishing truth. These “scientific” lies are alterations of actual laws.

We often note electronics men have a rough case time. This traces to the lies Man uses for his “electrical science”. As the subject is based on false assumptions, it itself tends to aberrate.

Therefore we get out of the road any former “therapy”. We can rehab any moment of release in it, handle any overrun, etc.

We also do a New Style Remedy B to get old therapies spotted and run back.

The only cases which hang up are:

1. 	Unaudited cases (lies about grades, etc).

2. 	Drug cases (who seek in processing the delusions or madness which exhilarated them on drugs).

3. 	Former therapy cases. (In this or past lives.)

4. 	Out of valence cases.

5. 	Cases who continue to commit overts on Scn.

6. 	Cases “audited” with their ruds or grades out.

7. 	Seriously physically ill cases (where the illness makes too much PTP in PT).

Of all these the former therapy case is apt to be the roughest as any auditing session can be reactively mistaken for the “treatment”. The next roughest is the drug case as a false exteriorization often occurs on an enforced basis and may go into restim.

Some drug takers go plowing back into early implants and drug therapies so the two get crossed up on a case.

To isolate the reason for a highly resistive case or high TA you can assess the above 7 items and get a clue. Don’t limit it to this lifetime. And don’t do it so as to key the person in hard on things he wasn’t in. And don’t do it unless the case is very hard to get a gain on.

Engram running of a crude sort can be found hundreds, thousands or billions of years ago and consists if it appears, of an overrun. They didn’t know much about it and overran them badly.

Implants, psychoanalysis, psychiatry, hypnotism get all snarled up with sex as these birds would commonly (and do) stage insane sex scenes. They violate the children and wives of officials even today to produce a degrade and to make a scene so insane that the “patient” if he remembers it really thinks he is insane. And if he tries to tell anybody (or if she tries to tell her husband) it’s a prompt mess, so these “practitioners” hide their activities in this fashion.

The trouble with such former “therapies” and electric shock, etc, is that it:

(a) 	groups track by the command of the practitioner 

(b) 	sends the pc to the start of track WAY back and sticks him there out of PT.

The keynote of piloting through messes like this is to (A) Know what kind of a mess it is and (B) Don’t EVER force a pc back track or into anything he doesn’t want to confront easily.

Drugs force  the person back into these messes and stick him.

One of these former therapy or drug messes is only hard to untangle because they are full of incredibles. The pc doesn’t accept them or just try to see what’s in them.

The basic rule in any case is Reality is proportional to the amount of charge removed and so Reality can be increased simply by removing charge. These surges of the needle as well as the BDs of the TA are “charge coming off”.

Anything eventually resolves if the pc just keeps on getting charge off.

The earliest charge is the most important.

Charge off the exact grades is the most valuable.

But ANY charge off will make it, even on former “therapies”.

                                        	L. RON HUBBARD
                                        	Founder

LRH:nt.bh.rd 
Copyright © 1971, 1974 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 9 JUNE 1960
Fran Hldrs 
Central Orgs 
HCOs

THE BASIC ASSUMPTIONS OF SCIENTOLOGY VERSUS OVERTS

The entire secret of all overt-withhold mechanisms is valences.

I have known for a long while that a profile on our tests is a picture of a valence.

If the preclear were in no valence, but was himself completely, he would have a perfect test response and would be wholly clear. In this statement we have one of the background structure points of Scientology.

This was an assumption point for some time, a point of departure, like “conservation of energy” in physics is the primary assumption point of 19th Century physics—if we assume this point then we have the “truths”, axioms and other data in elementary physics. The point, assumed and never proven (and not even well phrased) is the start point in physics from which all deductions are made. It is an “understood”, a non-examined theory. Physics was demonstrable truth, but only in a limited and finite sense. The moment nuclear physics, my dear companion that haunted my college days, came into action, the assumption point began to crumble and is not now considered to be truth. Hence while elementary physics works in a finite limited sense, it is not a considered true science any longer—it is only elementary science.

Freud, for instance, had as his start point (or assumption point), the Libido Theory of 1894 in which he based all on sex.

It is rare that a science ever embraces its own assumption point and resolves it. Freud was stuck with his Libido Theory, just as Newton’s successors were stuck with “Conservation of Energy”. So long as elementary physicists were concerned only with energy which “could not be destroyed or created” they tread-milled themselves into a dead-end mirrored in such things as inadequate costly engines, difficult construction and a complete lock out from space and other planets.

The great Einstein, not a physicist but a mathematician, established a new science which deserved the name of the physical science “physics”, a name already purloined by the natural philosophy of the 1 9th Century. Old time physics was the science of the age of fire and ended with the age of fire. It died to whimpering embers under the down blast of atomic fission. We are no longer scientifically nor politically in the age of fire. We are in the age of freed energy. We do not yet have an atomic physical science. We have only a number of guestimates like the bronze worker of early Greece who knew nothing of the facts of fire metallurgy. The fire age, begun by Prometheus, whoever he really was, is ending on Earth. The raw energy age has begun with all the teething troubles of any new era. Called the “Atomic Age” just now, it started with hints of others before Einstein but was actually born when Einstein wrote his Theory of Relativity. This, a crude guestimate, was yet a great departure point in the history of this planet. It has unlocked space to Man, promised him new engines, widened his scope. Unhappily it has also unlocked vast opportunities for political bungling—but I would rather say that it exposed political diplomacy as a bungling subject which must now urgently improve. Nations can no longer afford political ineptness.

Now the assumption point of physics, the science of the fire age, became disproved and the science is in question and the fire age is in fact over. The holes in physics have begun to glare. Some day a new science will be organized from the assumption point of Einstein’s work (no matter if he’s debunked, forgotten or becomes a legend like Prometheus, the professors of tomorrow can teach as a myth [Einstein stole the secret of eternal fission from a Heaven named Princeton where the goals... ] ) And ages hence somebody will prove or expose the basic assumption and the fission age will resurge or die, depending on whether or not the assumption is found to be true or false.

In Freud’s case in a lesser sense, a short and ineffective but highly interesting age of psychotherapy began with the Libido Theory in 1894 and began to disintegrate through lack of progress and development about 1920 although the subject itself became an intellectual football in the late 20s, an artist’s cross in the early 30s and a teenager’s subject in the late 50s. His contemporaries added nothing effective to Freud’s work and the subject, like psychology, which originated in 1879 and assumed men were animals, failed in all fields but wide popularity.

Back of all work on mental states, however, lie various assumption points, most of them hidden or undelineated, from which the remainder of the subject evolves and grows. If the cornerstone is proven only relatively factual, a long enduring career is guaranteed to the subject. Freud used as his assumption point more than his Libido Theory that all impulses and behaviors are sex-motivated. He assumed that if one were sex-motivated, then if one unblocked this drive by removing an early traumatic sex experience that was impeding the drive, the patient would recover from neurosis. All manner of interesting complications proceed from this: art, being considered a sublimation or aberration of the sex drive, had to be considered wholly neurotic: success, being most desirable as sexual success, was a product of a blessed neurosis if achieved in any other field. As treatment it was common for a Freudian practitioner to cut through the Gordian knot by ordering a patient to go out and have sex with everyone, prove his or her prowess and thus become well and happy. While this secured the popularity of the subject, it did little to reduce asylum statistics as these were on the increase throughout the Freudian age and were highest at its end, and indeed were higher in Freudian dominated areas than in others where Freudian treatment was not used. (Not my propaganda, just a recorded fact.)

The psychiatrist, following a Russian science, has a more basic and brutal assumption point which is that a shock cures aberration. The idea goes back a very long way, making psychiatry a long, if sporadic, age. Psychiatry ebbs and rises in use since it is a dramatization rather than a science. It springs from the same impulse that assumes punishment cures wrong-doing. The limited workability of this is apparent around us on every hand. We could do nothing socially about crime so we inhibited crime by striking at criminals. This gave us suppressed criminality and more criminals but it must be said that lacking any solution that worked well, then any solution that even seemed to work occasionally was considered better than nothing.

Perhaps at some early date in whole history this worked better, but all expedient cures tend to become a new illness. Alcohol, in any alcoholic, once cured something but now produces with amazing similarity the malady it once cured. These are stop-gap cures that do this, not cures in any absolute sense.

As the earliest punishment was the production of a shock in the offender whole track history continues to repeat the treatment for misbehavior as a dramatized action, not an intellectual undertaking. If a person misbehaves, he should be punished. Thus if a person misbehaves insanely he must be punished. Psychiatry is not, then, a science, but a legalized, at present, dramatization. And this is the very dramatization that makes this a cruel universe when it is. Punishment is unworkable as all the statistics show. Punish the criminal and he becomes, too often, a confirmed and hardened criminal.

All this, however, is based on a yet earlier lie. The last two years of my researches have been devoted to establishing or not, as the case may be, whether anything could actually be done to a person, or whether it was not the person himself who did it. I “knew” the latter was theoretically true but I had not found means to demonstrate it-and indeed was quite prepared to discover that something could be done to a person without his being prior cause. This work will be found under all 1958-59 data released all overts and withholds.

The earlier assumption to punishment is that something can be done to another being.

By evidences to date, odd as it may seem, it appears, by all processing tests, that one becomes aberrated only by means of his own, not another’s actions. I do not say that nothing can be done to a person or a being by another person or being. Obviously communication exists. I am only saying that all aberrative effects of action are created by the person who has them. Indeed none could be processed successfully through a burn or engram unless he himself were holding the aberration there—for the fire, location and other people are not consulted and are not even there in fact at the time of processing. A preclear being audited on a past incident can recover from its ill effects. Therefore it seems conclusive that he himself must be causing the ill effects in present time or he could not eradicate them since the “sources are not present”. Thus they must not have been the sources of his “ill effects”. The preclear must have been.

Inspecting the assumption points of Dianetics and Scientology one finds now that what was originally assumed is fact. Thus we are to be here as a science for a very long time.

As no science before ever proved its assumption point that I know about, we are suddenly unique in that our results tend to verify more than our basic truths. The further we go forward, in other words, the more basic are the assumption points. Unlike, then, physics or psychoanalysis or other sciences, we have examined and improved our assumption points.

We assumed in Dianetics that if we removed engrams, life would resurge and become good. This assumed that a being was all right until injured and that eradicating the injury would find him all right again. This is not the same as Freud for Freud never assumed goodness or rightness in Man, but on the contrary seemed to warn that we had better not go too far, art and all that depending on the madness of us all. As God seems to be blamed for most of the art work in this universe this seems a most impudent evaluation of God’s sanity on Freud’s part, although I do not think he ever displayed an actual professional sign saying “S. Freud, Psychotherapist by Appointment to God”.

The Dianetic assumption that Man is basically good and is damaged by punishment holds valid in practical practice and in some tens of thousands of cases (and we’re the only ones in history that validated our findings by strict long, long precise testing on cases); we find that the more we process successfully, the kinder and more ethical our people become. That disposes of the vile nature of Man by staggering poundage of evidence. The assumption that “all art is derived from aberration” is discounted by the numbers of singers and artists who sang better and painted better after they were made saner by us.

The basic psychiatric assumption that enough punishment will restore sanity is disproven, not only by psychiatric statistics but by actual observation and removal of the effects of “punishment” by processing.

That a being, without aberration, would be good, ethical, artistic and powerful, is still a basic assumption in Scientology. It has just been demonstrated as factual for our practice. This is news. Our assumption point has just become a basic truth. It is not just an assumption. Therefore we will now find ourselves on a new plane of progress, perhaps with new teething troubles, certainly with even further goals.

The truth was demonstrated in this wise:

I knew valences, those mocked up other-beingnesses a person thinks he is, were the source of test profile patterns.

When we rid the pc of an undesirable valence his profile rose on the graph and he felt and acted better. When we did not alter the valence in tested cases the profile remained much the same. If the preclear were driven into undesirable valences by experiment, his profile worsened apparently, although this is more difficult to verify, since the tone of the existing valence was undoubtedly dropped as well.

Now from this I have found the mechanism by which a being gives himself pain that is actually self-inflicted but is apparently other-inflicted. And this is a vast stride for it resolves O/Ws and we can consider it a broadly completed cycle of research ending two years with a victory for our assumption point.

By being a valence, not himself, a person confuses the source of pain. Inflicting it himself upon the valence he is in, and by experiencing the pain from the valence, a being can counterfeit the effect of being an effect of punishment. By being Valence A, he can conceive the environment is guilty of striking Valence A, but as this is in fact an overt by himself against Valence A (if only by failing to protect it) he feels the pain of Valence A. As he thinks of himself as Valence A, he can then feel his own pain.

The conclusion is that to feel pain and for pain to persist one must be in a valence.

The remedy for pain, illness, aberration, insanity and the lot, then, is to free the preclear of valences. Apparently, freed of all valences of an unconscious level, the preclear would yet be able to experience, but would not be involved with pain, etc, except by postulate.

The way to free him of all valences or unconscious counterfeit beingness is not the purpose of this paper.

Here I only wish to examine with you the aspects of assumption points of subjects and sciences (each of which has one, usually unknown to the originator) and to pass along the interesting intelligence that our former assumption point of “remove the aberration and you have a worthwhile person” has become demonstrable in practice and can be considered truth.

This means a new level has opened to the future with new certainty.

An overt recoils upon one because one is already in a valence similar to that of the being against whom the overt is leveled.

The mechanism is exposed. And as it is exposed, we find it is not needed since a being without valences is basically good. Only a being with valences has his overts recoil upon him. Only a being with valences commits overts harmful to others as he is behaving as he supposes the “evil” valence would behave but as no unvalenced being does.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:js.rd 
Copyright © 1960 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
		
HCO BULLETIN OF 20 SEPTEMBER 1978
Class IV	Issue II
Grad
Check sheets
Snr VI 	
(Cancels and replaces BTB 26 Nov 71, Issue III OUT OF VALENCE - 220H and BTB 25 Mar 72R URGENT IMPORTANT LX3 HANDLING REVISED AND REISSUED. This bulletin does not change in any way the Class VIII data on LX Lists or Out of Valence handling.)

LX LIST HANDLING

Ref:	HCOB 26 Jun 78 RA II	New Era Dianetics Series 6RA URGENT
		IMPORTANT. ROUTINE 3RA ENGRAM
		RUNNING BY CHAINS
	HCOB 5 Nov 69R	LX3 (ATTITUDES) (Used before LX2)
	HCOB 3 Aug 69R	LX2
	HCOB 9 Aug 69R	LX1 (CONDITIONS)
	HCOB 2 Aug 69R	“LX” LISTS

In handling Out of Valence from the GF 40 or the Expanded GF 40RD the LX Lists are used in this order: LX3, LX2, LX1 and if necessary, the last step, 220H.

END PHENOMENA

The end phenomena of the LX Lists is a remarkable valence shift. The pc will cognite on having been out of valence and will become himself. It is a cognition on beingness, not doingness or havingness that indicates the EP of the LX Lists. DO NOT OVERRUN A PC PAST THIS POINT.

PROCEDURE

Clear each word on the list before assessing it and note any instant reads which appear while clearing the item. These are valid reads. (Ref: HCOB 5 Aug 78 INSTANT READS)

Assess the list Method 5 and take up the largest reading item. Run each recall flow of that item, then check with the pc to see if he is interested in running it R3RA. Handle each flow of the item to EP. After a complete handling of the item handle the lesser reading items (if any) as above.

LX3 ATTITUDES

LX3 is the first list assessed. Run reading LX3 items 3 Way or Quad Recalls and 3 Way or Quad Engrams R3RA. Use the following commands:

Recalls:	F1: 	Recall a time you took the attitude of _______.
	F2: 	Recall a time you caused another to take the attitude of _______.
	F3: 	Recall a time others caused others to take the attitude of _______.
	F0: 	Recall a time you caused yourself to take the attitude of _______.

Engrams:	F1: 	Locate a time containing pain and unconsciousness when you took the attitude of _______.

	F2: 	Locate a time containing pain and unconsciousness of your causing another to take the attitude of _______.

	F3: 	Locate a time containing pain and unconsciousness of others causing others to take the attitude of _______.

	F0: 	Locate a time containing pain and unconsciousness of you causing yourself to take the attitude of _______.

LX2 EMOTIONS

LX2 items are run 3 Way or Quad Recalls and Engrams R3RA as above, substituting the reading emotion for the attitude.

LX1 CONDITIONS

LX1 items are run 3 Way or Quad Recalls and Engrams R3RA using the following commands:

Recalls:	F1: 	Recall a time you were _______.

	F2: 	Recall a time you caused another to be _______.

	F3: 	Recall a time others caused others to be _______.

	F0: 	Recall a time you caused yourself to be _______.

Engrams: 	F1: 	Locate a time containing pain and unconsciousness when you were _______.

	F2: 	Locate a time containing pain and unconsciousness of your causing another to be _______.

	F3: 	Locate a time containing pain and unconsciousness of others causing others to be _______.

	F0: 	Locate a time containing pain and unconsciousness of you causing yourself to be _______.

Note: On items “grief” and “loss” the command would be “Recall a time you had (a) _______.” and “Locate a time containing pain and unconsciousness when you had (a) _______.”, etc.

220H

220H is done after completing LX3, LX2 and LX1 if the pc has not experienced a remarkable valence shift and had a valence cognition. If the valence shift and cognition occur any time during the handling of the LX Lists, that is the end phenomena for LX handling and all further actions connected with LX Lists handling are ceased.

220H is run 3 Way or Quad Recalls and Engrams R3RA, using the following commands:

Recalls:	F1: 	Recall a time you were being someone else.
	F2: 	Recall a time you caused another to be someone else.
	F3: 	Recall a time others caused others to be someone else.
	F0: 	Recall a time you caused yourself to be someone else.

Engrams: 	F1: 	Locate a time containing pain and unconsciousness when you were being someone else.

	F2: 	Locate a time containing pain and unconsciousness of your causing another to be someone else.

	F3: 	Locate a time containing pain and unconsciousness of others causing others to be someone else.

	F0: 	Locate a time containing pain and unconsciousness of you causing yourself to be someone else.

Each recall flow is run to F/N, cognition and VGIs. Each engram flow must go to F/N, postulate and VGIs. (This will be the erasure.) If you encounter any trouble, use an L3RF.

Done correctly, LX Lists will bring about some very major changes in your pc.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH:kjm 
Copyright © 1978 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 2 AUGUST 1969R
REVISED 4 SEPTEMBER 1978
Cl IV Grad
Checksheets
Snr Cl VI	(Revisions in this type style)
Checksheets	(Ellipses indicate deletions)
C/Ses

(Class VIII tapes contain much data on Out of Valence
handling. This Bulletin, formerly Class VIII distribution,
has been revised to present a procedure whereby Snr
Class IV and VI auditors can do LX Lists and Out of
Valence handling on their pus. This revision in no way
revises Class VIII data.)

“LX” LISTS

There are now three “LX” Lists:

LX3—Attitudes

LX2—Emotions

LX1—Conditions.

Originally they were called “X” because they were experimental.

They still are to some extent so the X is retained.

These serve to isolate REASONS A BEING IS CHARGED UP TO SUCH an extent that he is OUT OF VALENCE.

When a person is out of valence he does not easily as-is his bank.

These lists are assessed Method 5.

The best reading item (and then subsequently reading items) are taken up and run by:
3-Way or Quad Recalls

3 Way or Quad Engrams R3RA...

END PHENOMENA

We now have a new discovery. I have found that a person who is out of valence experiences, when run on LX1 lists (and now the others above, LX2 and LX3) and 220H, a remarkable valence shift if he is run on enough items.

In one fashion or another he comments on this in session.

This is the end phenomena of Out of Valence processes (the LX items and 220H).

It is always attained if enough items are run.
Quite ordinary cases are out of valence. If their folder gets too fat you can assume they are out of valence.

Perverts, suppressives and critical, snide, ruthless, arrogant or contemptuous personalities are always out of valence.

A person who is in treason on the 1st dynamic is always out of valence.

So whether GF No. 40 (h) OUT OF VALENCE reads or not, if the folder is fat, you play safe and assess and run LX items until the person has the Valence cognition.

Without being coached, a person who is out of valence always has the cognition if he is run on enough items and 220H.

USE OF LISTS

One begins with LX3. He assesses it Method 5 and takes the item that read best, handles it, then the item that read next best, and so on down the list.

If no EP, LX2 is taken up and handled in the same manner, then LX1. 220H is the last step of Out of Valence handling if the EP has not yet been reached.

Today you can assume safely that anyone out of valence can be put in valence quietly and efficiently with LX items and 220H if he is audited and if the auditing is standard.

This is quite a worthwhile development as it resolves the heavily overcharged case.

A symptom of a heavily charged case is F/Ning too quickly to be processed well.

Using these lists on a pc is not a critical action. Even (and especially) children are too overcharged to be easily audited.

	L. RON HUBBARD 
	Founder 

LRH:ldm.rd.dr 
Copyright © 1969, 1978 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 5 NOVEMBER 1969R
Class IV Grad	Issue V
Checksheets	(HCOB 4 Aug 69 Amended and Revised)
Snr C/ass VI	REVISED 4 SEPTEMBER 1978
Checksheets
C/Ses	(Revisions in this type style)

LX3 (ATTITUDES)
(Used before LX2)

Reference:	HCOB 2 Aug 69R	”LX” LISTS
	HCOB 26 Jun 78RA	New Era Dianetics Series 6RA
	Issue II	URGENT IMPORTANT
		ROUTINE 3RA ENGRAM
		RUNNING BY CHAINS
	HCOB 20 Sep 78	LX LIST HANDLING
	Issue II

3 Way or Quad Recall
3 Way or Quad Engrams R3RA

Date: __________________________________

Pc Name:_______________________________

Treachery	___________
Disloyalty	___________
Helplessness	___________
Hostility	___________
Rudeness	___________
Cruelty	___________
Disobedience	___________
Rebelliousness	___________
Wastefulness	___________
Stinginess	___________
Cowardliness	___________
Dirtiness	___________
Ungodliness	___________
Wickedness	___________
Cunning	___________
Criticism	___________
Falsity	___________
Pretense	___________
Glee	___________
Laughter	___________
Mockery	___________
Embarrassment	___________
Feeling Hurt	___________
Oppressive	___________
Ridicule	___________
Good	___________
Persecution	___________
Betrayal	___________
Guilt	___________

LRH:ldm.rs.rd.kjm	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1969, 1978	Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 3 AUGUST 1969R
REVISED 22 AUGUST 1978
Cl IV Grad
Checksheets	(Revisions in this type style)
Snr Cl VI	(Ellipses indicate deletions)
Checksheets
C/Ses
LX2
EMOTIONAL ASSESSMENT LIST
(To be done before LX1)

3 Way or Quad Recall
3 Way or Quad Engrams R3RA

Reference:	HCOB 2 Aug 69R	“LX” LISTS
	HCOB 26 Jun 78RA	New Era Dianetics Series 6RA
URGENT IMPORTANT
ROUTINE 3RA ENGRAM
RUNNING BY CHAINS
	HCOB 20 Sep 78II	LX LIST HANDLING

Date: _____________________________________

Pc Name:__________________________________

Apprehension	____________
Fear	____________
Hate	____________
Agitation	____________
Shame	____________
Blame	____________
Regret	____________
Grief	____________
Remorse	____________
Sorrow	____________
Sadness	____________
Despondency	____________
Depressed	____________
Despair	____________
Anger	____________
Rage	____________
Greed	____________
Haughty	____________
Arrogant	____________
Cold	____________
Contemptuous	____________
Hostility	____________
Resentment	____________
Antagonism	____________
Boredom	____________
Conservatism	____________
Enthusiasm	____________
Proud	____________
Elation	____________
Serenity	____________
Unemotional	____________

LRH:rs.rd.jk	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1969, 1978	Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 9 AUGUST 1969R
REVISED 21 AUGUST 1978
REISSUED 4 NOVEMBER 1978
Class IV Grad
Checksheet
Snr Class VI	(Revisions in this type style)
Checksheet	(Ellipsis indicates deletion)
C/Ses
(Reissued 4 Nov 78 to correct typo—
correction in italics.)
LX1 (CONDITIONS)
(Formerly issued to Class VIII auditors
as a research list on 5 October 1968)

Used after LX3 and LX2.
3 Way or Quad Recall
3 Way or Quad Engrams R3RA

Reference:	HCOB 2 Aug 69R	“LX” LISTS
	HCOB 26 Jun 78RA	New Era Dianetics Series 6RA
URGENT IMPORTANT
ROUTINE 3RA ENGRAM
RUNNING BY CHAINS
	HCOB 20 Sep 78II	LX LIST HANDLING

Date: _____________________________________

Pc Name:__________________________________

Assessment for largest read.
Overwhelmed	____________
Made Wrong	____________
Forced	____________
Frightened	____________
Suppressed	____________
Crushed	____________
Oppressed	____________
Denied	____________
Overpowered	____________
Overthrown	____________
Defeated	____________
Destroyed	____________
Vanquished	____________
Wiped Out	____________
Annihilated	____________
Changed	____________
Identified	____________
Recognized	____________
Driven Out	____________
Driven Away	____________
Grief	____________
Loss	____________

LRH:rs.rd.kjm	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1969, 1978	Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 8 DECEMBER 1978
Issue II
Remimeo
Class IV Grad
Checksheet
Class VI
Checksheet
Class IV and
above Auditors
C/Ses
GREEN FORM AND
EXPANDED GREEN FORM 40RD,
USE OF

GREEN FORM

The Green Form is a precision tool which covers the things bugging a case that no other list will detect. It is not intended to correct session errors or cure high or low TA. It specializes in picking up the peculiarities and elements of a pc’s life which are out of view in normal auditing and which cause a case to behave unusually. The case may not be particularly resistive, just bugged or not making sense and the Green Form is the list to use to sort it out. It is an excellent C/S tool for getting an estimate of a case and getting it untangled.

You can assess it Method 3 and handle, not going beyond the first F/N, when ruds won’t fly at the start of session, but its real use is to assess Method 5 and then send to the C/S for programming.

If the case appears to be resistive or hasn’t sorted out after a full handling of all reading items has been done on the Green Form, then the No. 40 question, called the Resistive Cases Assessment, is assessed Method 5.

RESISTIVE CASES

Each item on the Resistive Cases Assessment has a corresponding section on the Expanded Green Form 40RD. When an item reads on the Resistive Cases Assessment, you go to the section of the Expanded Green Form 40RD which corresponds (by letter) and assess Method 5 that section.

You assess one section of the Expanded Green Form 40RD for each Resistive Cases Assessment item that reads. For example, on the Resistive Cases Assessment, Item C “Audited With Ruds Out” and Item 1-2 “Has Taken Drugs” read. The auditor will now go to the Expanded Green Form 40RD, assess all of Section C “Audited With Ruds Out” and all of Section I “Has Taken Drugs.”

Then, depending on C/S instructions, the auditor will l) return the folder to the C/S for programming of the case based on the reads he has just gotten or, if he has C/S okay, 2) handle the reads per the instructions given for each reading question.

HANDLING READS

The sections of the Expanded Green Form 40RD have been arranged in the order in which they are to be taken up if reading.
Occasionally an item may read on the Resistive Cases Assessment, but give no reads on the assessment of the appropriate section of the EXGF 40RD. (Example: Section G “Seriously Physically Ill” reads on the Resistive Cases Assessment, but when the auditor assesses Section G on the EXGF 40RD, even after putting in the buttons, there are no reads.) If this occurs, check False and Protest and take the item to an F/N.

CLEARS, OTs AND DIANETIC CLEARS

The Green Form and especially the Expanded Green Form 40RD call for Dianetic handlings (R3RA) on many items. In using these lists on someone who is Clear, OT or Dianetic Clear, NO Dianetic handlings are done on any items, nor is ant activity to be engaged in which brings about further engram running.

Where Dianetic handlings are called for on items, there are given additional, special handlings for Clears, OTs and Dianetic Clears, which consist of indicating the bypassed charge, letting the person tell you about it if he wishes and indicating the F/N.

This, of course, cannot be considered a full handling for many items and the Clear, OT or Dianetic Clear should be programmed for NED for OTs as soon as possible to fully handle any areas of case which, due to his case state, are beyond the scope of New Era Dianetics.

DRUGS

If unhandled drugs are reading, drugs must be fully handled with the NED Drug Rundown as soon as the EXGF 40RD is complete.

If a Clear, OT or Dianetic Clear is being a resistive case due to unhandled drugs. the answer is to program the person for a Sweat Program and even Objectives. (You do not run engrams.) The Sweat Program and Objectives will handle drugs where they are hanging up a Clear, OT or Dianetic Clear.

END PHENOMENA

Otherwise. unless you have missed a read, you will have handled the resistiveness of the pc’s case upon completion of the EXGF 40RD.

The Green Form, used by itself, or with the EXGF 40RD will solve cases that no other list will handle. They will get a pc winning who has been making no or slow case gains due to some peculiarity or element of his life or case, and they will do this faster and more easily than ever before.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH: jk 
Copyright © 1978 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
		
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 7 APRIL 1970RB
REVISED 8 DECEMBER 1978
Remimeo
Class IV Grad
Checksheet	(Revisions not printed in a different type style)
Class VI
Checksheet
Class IV Grad
Auditors	GREEN FORM
C/Ses

The Green Form is used to detect the peculiarities and elements of a pc’s life which are causing case trouble or preventing gains. (It is not used to cure high or low TA.)

You can assess it Method 3 and handle, not going beyond the first F/N, but its real use is Method 5 and send to the C/S for programming.

It can also be used in combination with the Expanded Green Form 40RD to precisely locate and solve any resistiveness of a pc’s case.

Directions for use of the Green Form and the Expanded Green Form 40RD are given in HCOB 8 December 78 11, GREEN FORM AND EXPANDED GREEN FORM 40RD, USE OF. It is vital, before using these lists, that any auditor or C/S first checks out on the above issue.

PC NAME: 	DATE:_______________

AUDITOR: ______________________________________

1A. 	HAVE YOU NOT HAD SUFFICIENT SLEEP?	_________

1B. 	ARE YOU PHYSICALLY TIRED?	_________

1C. 	HAVE YOU NOT HAD ENOUGH FOOD?	_________

1D. 	ARE YOU HUNGRY?	_________

1E. 	HAVE YOU DRUNK ALCOHOL?	_________

IF. 	HAVE YOU TAKEN ASPIRIN?	_________

1G. 	HAVE YOU TAKEN TRANQUILIZERS?	_________

1H. 	HAVE YOU TAKEN DRUGS?	_________

Do not audit a pc who has not had sufficient food or rest or who has taken aspirin or drugs. If one of the above questions reads, assess no further; take the question up with the pc. If he is tired, send him home to rest, if he is hungry, send him to get well fed, and if he has taken drugs, he will have to dry out for the time specified in HCOB 17 Oct 69RA, DRUGS, ASPIRIN AND TRANQUILIZERS.

2A. 	HAVE YOU GONE EXTERIOR IN AUDITING? 	_________
If the pc is Clear, Dianetic Clear or OT and has not had an Int RD, do the End of Endless Int Repair RD per Int Series 4R. Do not run any Dianetics. Otherwise, if the pc has never had an Int RD, give him a standard Int RD per Int Series 2.

2B. 	HAS YOUR INT RD BEEN MESSED UP? 	_________
Do an Int RD Correction List Revised (HCOB 29 Oct 71RA). If Int Correction has already been done on the pc get an FES of the Int RD and its corrections. When all errors are corrected the C/S may order the End of Endless Int Repair RD per Int Series 4R.

3.	HAS THERE BEEN A LIST ERROR?	_________
	Find out which and handle with an L4BRA.

4A. 	DO YOU HAVE AN ARC BREAK? 	_________
	Handle with ARCU CDEINR E/S to F/N.

4B. 	DO YOU HAVE AN ARC BREAK WITH THE ENVIRONMENT?	_________ 
ARCU CDEINR E/S to F/N or Remedy B if ordered by the C/S. (Ref: BTB 14 Aug 68R, REMEDY B—ENVIRONMENT AND “NEW STYLE.”)

4C. 	DO YOU HAVE A PRESENT TIME PROBLEM? 	_________
	Itsa E/S itsa to F/N.

4D. 	HAS A WITHHOLD BEEN MISSED? 	_________
Get what, who nearly found out, what they did to miss it, E/S M/W/H to F/N.

4E. 	WAS THERE A WITHHOLD THAT KEPT COMING UP? 	_________
Who wouldn’t accept it, who said it still read. Indicate it was a false read. 2WC the concern.

4F. 	HAVE YOU COMMITTED AN OVERT? 	_________
	Pull it, E/S to F/N.

5.	ARE YOU EXPERIMENTING?	_________
	Get time, place, form and event E/S to F/N.

6.	ARE YOU ALTERING TECH?	_________
	Get time, place, form and event E/S to F/N.

7.	ARE YOU DOING SOMETHING ELSE WITH TECH?	_________
	Get time, place, form and event E/S to F/N.

8.	HAVE YOU TYPED, HANDWRITTEN OR TAPED COPIES OF ANY CONFIDENTIAL MATERIALS?	_________
	Get time, place, form and event E/S to F/N.

9.	ARE YOU HERE TO GET DATA FOR SOMEONE ELSE?	_________
	Get what, when, all, who E/S to F/N.

10. 	DO YOU HAVE A CRIMINAL RECORD OR CRIMES FOR WHICH YOU COULD BE ARRESTED? 	_________
Note all crimes, with what, when, all and who and handle with E/S to F/N.

11. 	ARE YOU HERE TO BE CURED OF SOMETHING NOT MENTIONED? 	_________
	Itsa E/S itsa to F/N.

12. 	DO YOU HAVE UNPAID DEBTS TO ORGS? 	_________
	Get time, place, form and event E/S to F/N.

13. 	DO YOU HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF A CRIME AGAINST SCIENTOLOGY? 	_________
	Get time, place, form and event E/S to F/N.

14. 	ARE THERE IGNORED ORIGINATIONS? 	_________
	Itsa E/S itsa to F/N.

15. 	HAVE YOU BEEN SELF-AUDITING! 	_________
	Itsa E/S itsa to F/N or L1C on the prior upset. If prior upset was in auditing, use the appropriate correction list.

16A	HAVE YOU BEEN AUDITED BY A NONSTANDARD AUDITOR?	_________ 
	Itsa E/S itsa to F/N.

16B. HAS THERE BEEN A NONSTANDARD PROCESS?	_________ 
	Itsa E/S itsa to F/N.

16C. HAS THERE BEEN A BAD AUDITING COMM CYCLE? Itsa E/S itsa to F/N. 	_________
	L1C if necessary.

16D	HAVE THERE BEEN CODE BREAKS? 	_________
	Itsa E/S itsa to F/N.

17A	IS THERE AN ENGRAM IN RESTIMULATION? 	_________
	L3RF and handle. (On a Clear, OT or Dianetic Clear, indicate the read. You may do an L3RF if needed, however. do no handling beyond indicating the read. See HCOB 30 Oct 78 C/S Series 53, USE OF for further data on handling reading Dianetic items on Clears, OTs and Dianetic Clears.)

17B. IS A PICTURE NOT ERASED? 	_________
	Handle as in 17A above.

18. IS THERE AN ENGRAM EXACTLY MATCHING PT DANGERS? 	_________
	Run it out Triple or Quad. (On Clears, OTs and Dianetic Clears, handle as in 17A above.)

19. 	ARE YOU CONNECTED TO A SUPPRESSIVE PERSON?	_________	
	 2WC to F/N. Return to C/S for instructions on further handling if needed.

20. 	ARE YOU CONNECTED TO A SUPPRESSIVE GROUP? 	_________
	2WC to F/N. Return to C/S for instructions on further handling if needed.

21. 	IS THERE AN ENVIRONMENTAL MENACE?	_________ 
	2WC to F/N. Return to C/S.

22. 	ARE YOU HERE BECAUSE SOMEONE ELSE DEMANDED IT? 	_________
	2WC to F/N. Return to C/S.

23A. DO YOU HAVE A HIDDEN STANDARD?	_________ 
	L&N “What hasn’t been handled?” 
	L&N “Who or what would have (item above) ?” 
	Run O/W on the item.

23B. WHAT WOULD HAVE TO HAPPEN FOR YOU TO KNOW SCIENTOLOGY WORKS? 	_________
	Handle as in 23A above.

24. 	WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF SCIENTOLOGY WORKED?	_________ 
	Itsa E/S itsa to F/N.

25. 	CAN’T YOU STUDY? 	_________
	Assess and handle a Study Green Form.

26. 	HAS ANYTHING BEEN SUPPRESSED?	_________
	Itsa E/S itsa to F/N.

27. 	HAS ANYTHING BEEN INVALIDATED?	_________
	Itsa E/S itsa to F/N.

28. 	HAS ANYTHING BEEN EVALUATED?	_________
	Itsa E/S itsa to F/N.

29. 	HAS ANYTHING BEEN RUSHED?	_________
	Itsa E/S itsa to F/N.

30. 	HAS ANYTHING BEEN MISSED?	_________
	Itsa E/S itsa to F/N.

31. 	HAS A PROCESS BEEN LEFT UNFLAT?	_________
	2WC for data to F/N. Return to C/S.

32. 	HAS A PROCESS BEEN OVERRUN?	_________
	Rehab.

33. 	HAS A RELEASE BEEN BYPASSED?	_________
	Rehab.

34. 	HAVE YOU BEEN OVERREPAIRED?	_________
	Repair Correction List.

35. 	HAVE YOU GONE DIANETIC CLEAR?	_________
	Date/Locate.

36. 	IS THERE ANYTHING UPSETTING ABOUT THIS REVIEW?	_________
	Itsa E/S itsa to F/N.

37. 	IS THIS LIST UNNECESSARY?	_________
	Indicate. If no F/N rehab or Date/Locate.

38. 	IS THERE SOMETHING THAT HASN’T BEEN HANDLED?	_________
	Find out what and handle or return to the C/S.

39. 	IS THERE SOMETHING ELSE WRONG?	_________
	Find out what and handle or return to C/S.

RESISTIVE CASES ASSESSMENT

Assess Method 5 the following resistive cases. If any item reads, go to its corresponding section on the Expanded Green Form 40RD and assess Method 5 all the items in that section. Assess the section on the Expanded Green Form 40RD that corresponds to each reading item.

When all sections corresponding to the reading resistive cases items are assessed you will have a full picture of the pc’s resistiveness.

Then, if you have C/S okay, take up each reading section on the EXGF 40RD in the order in which they are listed below and handle reads per the instructions given.

Otherwise, return to the C/S for programming.

A-1.	WENT DIANETIC CLEAR AND NEVER ATTESTED	_________
A-2.	HAD ENGRAMS RUN AFTER BEING DIANETIC CLEAR	_________
B. 	DOESN’T WANT AUDITING	_________
C. 	AUDITED WITH RUDIMENTS OUT	_________
D. 	OVERWHELMED	_________
E. 	CONTINUOUSLY COMMITTING OVERTS ON SCIENTOLOGY	_________
F-1.	SUPPRESSED	_________
F-2.	CONNECTED TO AN ANTAGONISTIC PERSON	_________
G. 	SERIOUSLY PHYSICALLY ILL	_________
H. 	HAS NOT HAD AUDITING	_________
I-1. 	SEEKING THE SAME THRILL ATTAINED FROM DRUGS	_________
I-2. 	HAS TAKEN DRUGS	_________
J. 	FORMER THERAPY BEFORE SCIENTOLOGY	_________
K. 	HAS BEEN PART OF EARLIER PRACTICES	_________
L-1.	OUT OF VALENCE	_________
L-2.	ARE YOU BEING SOMEONE ELSE	_________
M. 	PRETENDING TRAINING OR GRADES NOT ATTAINED	_________
N. 	AUDITED WITH PRIOR GRADES OUT	_________
O. 	MISUNDERSTOODS IN AUDITING	_________

LRH:nc 	L. RON HUBBARD 
Copyright (c) 1970, 1974, 1978 	Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
		
HCO BULLETIN OF 30 JUNE 1971RB
REVISED 1 DECEMBER 1974
Remimeo	CANCELS HCOB 3 DEC 71 HANDLING SHEET
Class IV	REVISED 15 FEBRUARY 1977
Grad Check-	REVISED 4 DECEMBER 1978
sheet
Class VI
Checksheet	(Revisions not printed in a different type style)
Class IV Grad and
above Auditors
C/Ses	
EXPANDED GREEN FORM 40RD
EXGF 40RD

The Expanded Green Form 40RD is used with the Resistive Cases Assessment on a resistive case to precisely locate and solve its resistiveness.

The assessment of the resistive cases will direct the auditor to the type of the pc’s resistiveness. Further assessment is then done in the section of the Expanded Green Form 40RD appropriate to what has read on the Resistive Cases Assessment and handlings are given for what has been found.

This list provides a fast and direct method for solving resistive cases.

Before using this list on any pc the auditor must have first checked out on HCOB 8 Dec 78 Iss II GREEN FORM AND EXPANDED GREEN FORM 40RD, USE OF.

RESISTIVE CASES ASSESSMENT

(If this assessment has just been done on the Green Form No. 40 question, it is not repeated. Go right into the Expanded Green Form 40RD assessments.)

Assess Method 5 the following resistive cases. If any item reads, go to its corresponding section on the Expanded Green Form 40RD and assess Method 5 all the items in that section. Assess the section on the Expanded Green Form 40RD that corresponds to each reading item.

When all sections corresponding to the reading resistive cases items are assessed you will have a full picture of the pc’s resistiveness.

Then, if you have C/S okay, take up each reading section on the EXGF 40RD in the order in which they are listed below and handle reads per the instructions given.

Otherwise, return to the C/S for programming.

A-1 	WENT DIANETIC CLEAR AND NEVER ATTESTED	_________
A-2 	HAD ENGRAMS RUN AFTER BEING DIANETIC CLEAR	_________
B 	DOESN’T WANT AUDITING	_________
C 	AUDITED WITH RUDIMENTS OUT	_________

D 	OVERWHELMED	_________
E 	CONTINUOUSLY COMMITTING OVERTS ON SCIENTOLOGY	_________
F-1 	SUPPRESSED	_________

F-2 	CONNECTED TO AN ANTAGONISTIC PERSON	_________
G 	SERIOUSLY PHYSICALLY ILL	_________

H 	HAS NOT HAD AUDITING	_________
I-1 	SEEKING THE SAME THRILL ATTAINED FROM DRUGS	_________
I-2 	HAS TAKEN DRUGS	_________
J 	FORMER THERAPY BEFORE SCIENTOLOGY	_________
K 	HAS BEEN PART OF EARLIER PRACTICES	_________
L-1 	OUT OF VALENCE	_________
L-2 	ARE YOU BEING SOMEONE ELSE	_________
M 	PRETENDING TRAINING OR GRADES NOT ATTAINED	_________
N 	AUDITED WITH PRIOR GRADES OUT	_________
O 	MISUNDERSTOODS IN AUDITING	_________

SECTION A—WENT DIANETIC CLEAR AND
NEVER ATTESTED

	If item A-1 reads, Date/Locate. If item A-2 reads, 2WC to F/N and return to the C/S.

SECTION B—DOESN’T WANT AUDITING

B-1 	DO YOU NOT WANT AUDITING? 	_________
	2WC to find out why not. It will be an out-rud or an out-list. Handle appropriately.

B-2 	ARE YOU REFUSING AUDITING? 	_________
	2WC to find out why. It will be an out-rud or an out-list. Handle appropriately.

B-3 	ARE YOU PROTESTING AUDITING? 	_________
	Itsa E/S itsa to F/N.

B-4 	DO YOU DISLIKE TALKING TO AN AUDITOR?	_________ 
	If so, run “Look at me. Who am I?” to F/N. Then “What could you say?” to F/N.

B-5 	HAS NO ONE ASKED WHAT YOU REALLY WANT?	_________ 
	Itsa E/S itsa to F/N.

B-6 	HAS THERE BEEN ANYTHING WRONG WITH F/NS? 	_________
	Find the fault and handle with false TA HCOBs. Rehab any overruns due to false TA.

SECTION C—AUDITED WITH RUDIMENTS OUT

C-1 	HAVE YOU BEEN AUDITED WITH RUDIMENTS OUT? 	_________
	Find out which and handle to F/N.

C-2 	HAVE YOU BEEN AUDITED OVER AN ARC BREAK? 	_________
	ARCU CDEINR E/S to F/N.

C-3 	HAVE YOU BEEN AUDITED OVER A PROBLEM? 	_________
	Itsa E/S itsa to F/N.

C-4 	HAVE YOU BEEN AUDITED OVER A WITHHOLD? 	_________
	What was the withhold? Who missed it? E/S to F/N.

C-5 	HAVE YOU BEEN AUDITED OVER AN OVERT?	_________ 
	What was the overt? E/S overt to F/N.

C-6 	ARE YOU LYING TO PEOPLE? 	_________
	Itsa E/S itsa to F/N.

C-7 	DO YOU HAVE SECRETS? 	_________
	2WC what secrets E/S to F/N.

C-8 	ARE YOU HERE FOR REASONS NOT DISCLOSED? 	_________
	If so, L&N “What was your original reason for coming here?” R3RA Triple or Quad if an evil purpose. Program for EX DN. (On a Clear, OT or Dianetic Clear, do the L&N step only.)

C-9 	DO YOU HAVE AN EVIL PURPOSE? 	_________
	L&N “What evil purpose do you have?” R3RA Triple or Quad. Program for EX DN. (On a Clear, OT or Dianetic Clear, do the L&N step only.)

SECTION D—OVERWHELMED

D-1 	HAVE YOU BEEN OVERWHELMED BY AUDITING?	_________ 
	Run out the incident of overwhelm R3RA Narrative Triple or Quad. (On Flow 1, acknowledge what the pc says and continue with R3RA Narrative commands 2-9 A-EYE.)

F2: 	Return to the time you caused another to be overwhelmed by auditing and tell me when you are there. 
F3: 	Return to the time others caused others to be overwhelmed by auditing and tell me when you are there. 
F0: 	Return to the time you caused yourself to be overwhelmed by auditing and tell me when you are there. 
	( Progress Program . )

	(On a Clear, OT or Dianetic Clear 2WC for data and use the appropriate correction list to locate and indicate the bypassed charge )

D-2 	HAVE YOU BEEN OVERWHELMED BY LIFE? 	_________
	Handle as in D-1 with Narrative R3RA Triple or Quad, substituting “by life.” (Progress Program.) 2WC and the appropriate correction list on Clears and above.

D-3	HAVE YOU BEEN OVERWHELMED BY FAMILY CONNECTIONS ? 	_________
	Handle as in D-1 with Narrative R3RA Triple or Quad, substituting “by family connections.” (Progress Program.) 2WC and the appropriate correction list on Clears and above.

D-4 	HAVE YOU BEEN OVERWHELMED ON YOUR POST?	_________ 
	(ON YOUR JOB?) 
	Handle as in D-1 with Narrative R3RA Triple or Quad, substituting “on your post” or “on your job” whichever is appropriate and has read. (Progress Program.) 2WC and the appropriate correction list on Clears and above.

D-5	ARE YOU RESTIMULATED IN YOUR CURRENT ENVIRONMENT?	_________ 
	Run out the time he felt restimulated in his environment R3RA Narrative Triple or Quad. (Progress Program.) 2WC and the appropriate correction list on Clears and above.

SECTION E—CONTINUOUSLY COMMITTING
OVERTS ON SCIENTOLOGY

E-1 	ARE YOU CONTINUOUSLY COMMITTING OVERTS ON SCIENTOLOGY? 	_________
	L&N “What are you trying to prevent?” R3RA Triple/Quad preventing (item). 2WC committing continuous overts and pull them, E/S to F/N. On a Clear, OT or Dianetic Clear the handling is: L&N “What are you trying to prevent?” 2WC committing continuous overts and pull them, E/S to F/N.

E-2 	DO YOU KEEP ON GOOFING? 	_________
	Handle as in E-1.

E-3 	ARE YOU COMMITTING CONTINUOUS OVERTS IN LIFE?	_________	
 	Handle as in E-1.

SECTION F—SUPPRESSED
CONNECTED TO AN ANTAGONISTIC PERSON

F-1 	ARE YOU CONNECTED TO SOMEONE HOSTILE OR ANTAGONISTIC TO SCIENTOLOGY?	_________	
	PTS interview. C/S to program as needed for further PTS handling.

F-2 	ARE OTHERS ANTAGONISTIC TO WHAT YOU ARE DOING?	_________ 
	PTS interview. C/S to program as needed for further PTS handling.

F-3 	HAVE YOU BEEN SUPPRESSED BY ANOTHER? 	_________
	2WC to F/N. C/S to program as needed for further PTS handling.

F-4 	DO YOU MAKE GAINS AND THEN LOSE THEM? 	_________
	PTS interview. C/S to program as needed for further PTS handling.

F-5 	DO YOU RECEIVE GAINS OR BENEFITS FROM BEING ILL OR DISABLED? 	_________
	2WC to F/N. Return to C/S.

SECTION G—SERIOUSLY PHYSICALLY ILL

G-1 	ARE YOU SERIOUSLY PHYSICALLY ILL? 	_________
	2WC to find out what the illness or symptoms are. Return the folder to the C/S. Program per HCOB 24 Jul 69R SERIOUSLY ILL PCs and BTB 28 May 74RB FULL ASSIST CHECKLIST FOR INJURIES AND ILLNESSES.

G-2 	IS YOUR BODY ILL? 	_________
	2WC “What seems to be wrong with your body?” to F/N. Program per BTB 28 May 74RB FULL ASSIST CHECKLIST FOR INJURIES AND ILLNESSES.

G-3 	ARE YOU MENTALLY ILL? 	_________
	Handle as a withhold. E/S “Is there an earlier time you were mentally ill?” to F/N. R3RA Narrative Triple/Quad. Then do a full preassessment on it.

G-4 	DO YOU HAVE ANY BROKEN BONES?	_________ 
	2WC to F/N. Medical treatment followed by a program per BTB 28 May 74RB FULL ASSIST CHECKLIST FOR INJURIES AND ILLNESSES.

G-5 	DO YOU HAVE ANY INFECTIOUS DISEASE? 	_________
	2WC to get the data on what it is to F/N. Medical treatment followed by a program per BTB 28 May 74RB FULL ASSIST CHECKLIST FOR INJURIES AND ILLNESSES.

G-6 	DO YOU HAVE ANY HIDDEN ILLNESSES? 	_________
	2WC to F/N. Program per BTB 28 May 74RB FULL ASSIST CHECKLIST FOR INJURIES AND ILLNESSES.

G-7 	DO YOU HAVE ANY TOOTH DECAY? 	_________
	2WC to F/N. Dental treatment followed by a program per BTB 28 May 74RB FULL ASSIST CHECKLIST FOR INJURIES AND ILLNESSES .

G-8 	DO YOU HAVE ANY PHYSICALLY DAMAGED PARTS? 	_________	
	2WC to find out what, to F/N. Program per BTB 28 May 74RB FULL ASSIST CHECKLIST FOR INJURIES AND ILLNESSES.

G-9 	DO YOU HAVE ANY BODY PARTS MISSING? 	_________
	2WC to find out what, to F/N. Program per BTB 28 May 74RB FULL ASSIST CHECKLIST FOR INJURIES AND ILLNESSES.

G-10	HAVE YOU HAD ANY BODY PARTS REMOVED?	_________ 
	2WC to find out what, to F/N. Program per BTB 28 May 74RB FULL ASSIST CHECKLIST FOR INJURIES AND ILLNESSES.

SECTION H—HAS NOT HAD AUDITING

H-1 	HAVE YOU NOT HAD AUDITING? 	_________
	L&N “Who or what would prevent auditing?” Triple or Quad ruds and overts on the item.

H-2 	HAVE YOU BEEN SELF-AUDITING? 	_________
	2WC to find out when the pc first started self-auditing. Do an L1C on the prior upset. If the prior upset was in auditing, use the appropriate correction list.

H-3 	HAVE YOU BEEN AUDITED IN AN EARLIER LIFE? 	_________
	2WC to F/N. C/S to program to handle any overrun or other difficulties with past auditing, if needed.

SECTION I—SEEKING THE SAME THRILL
ATTAINED FROM DRUGS
HAS TAKEN DRUGS

I-1 	ARE YOU SEEKING THE SAME THRILL ATTAINED FROM DRUGS? 	_________
	2WC to F/N. (E/S if needed “Is there an earlier time you were seeking the same thrill attained from drugs?”) Advance Program for a Drug RD or to complete it. (On Clears, OTs and Dianetic Clears, indicate the item. Do no further handling.)

I-2 	HAVE YOU TAKEN DRUGS? 	_________
	2WC to F/N. If pc has had his Drug RD do a Drug RD Repair List. L3RF if needed. Advance Program for a Drug RD or to complete it. (On Clears, OTs and Dianetic Clears, handle as in I-1.)

I-3 	DO YOU WANT TO CONTINUE TO TAKE DRUGS? 	_________
	2WC to F/N. If pc has had his Drug RD do a Drug RD Repair List. L3RF if needed. Advance Program for a Drug RD or to complete it. (On Clears, OTs and Dianetic Clears, handle as in 1-1.)

I-4 	HAVE YOU NEVER TAKEN DRUGS?	_________ 
	2WC to F/N. (E/S if needed “Is there an earlier time you never took drugs?”)

I-5 	ARE YOU CURIOUS ABOUT DRUGS? 	_________
	2WC to F/N. (E/S if needed “Is there an earlier time you were curious about drugs?”)

I-6 	HAS MEDICINE ACTED AS DRUGS? 	_________
	2WC to F/N. If pc has had a Drug RD do a Drug RD Repair List. L3RF if needed. Advance Program to handle all reading drugs, medicine and alcohol with a full Drug RD or to complete it. (On Clears, OTs and Dianetic Clears, handle as in I-1.)

I-7 	HAVE YOU DRUNK ALCOHOL? 	_________
	2WC to F/N If pc has had a Drug RD do a Drug RD Repair List. L3RF if needed. Advance Program for a Drug RD or to complete it. (On Clears, OTs and Dianetic Clears, handle as in I-l.)

SECTION J—FORMER THERAPY BEFORE SCIENTOLOGY

(If any item in this section reads on a Clear, OT or Dianetic Clear, indicate the reading item, let the person tell you about it if he wishes, and indicate the F/N. Do no further handling.)

J-1 	HAVE YOU HAD A FORMER THERAPY BEFORE SCIENTOLOGY?	_________
	Narrative R3RA Triple or Quad on having a former therapy.
F1: 	Return to the time you had a former therapy and tell me when you are there. 
F2: 	Return to the time you gave a former therapy to another and tell me when you are there. 
F3: 	Return to the time others gave a former therapy to others and tell me when you are there. 
F0: 	Return to the time you gave a former therapy to yourself and tell me when you are there.

J-2 	HAVE YOU HAD MEDICAL THERAPY? 	_________
	Narrative R3RA Triple or Quad, as in J-1, substituting “medical therapy.”

J-3 	HAVE YOU HAD PSYCHIATRIC THERAPY? 	_________
	Narrative R3RA Triple or Quad, as in J-1, substituting “psychiatric therapy.”

J-4 	HAVE YOU HAD PSYCHOLOGY THERAPY? 	_________
	Narrative R3RA Triple or Quad, as in J-1, substituting “psychology therapy.”

J-5 	HAVE YOU HAD DENTAL THERAPY? 	_________
	Narrative R3RA Triple or Quad, as in J-1, substituting “dental therapy.”

J-6 	HAVE YOU HAD ELECTRIC SHOCK? 	_________	
	2WC to F/N. Return to C/S for okay to run out the electric shock Narrative R3RA Triple or Quad, as in J-1, followed by a preassessment of the electric shock.

SECTION K—HAS BEEN PART OF EARLIER PRACTICES

(If any item in this section reads on a Clear, OT or Dianetic Clear, indicate the reading item, let the person tell you about it if he wishes, and indicate the F/N. Do no further handling.)

K-1 	ARE YOU CURRENTLY DOING ANY BODY PRACTICES?	_________
	Narrative R3RA Triple or Quad on body practices.
F1: 	Return to the time you took part in body practices and tell me when you are there.
F2: 	Return to the time you caused another to take part in body practices and tell me when you are there.
F3: 	Return to the time others caused others to take part in body practices and tell me when you are there.
F0: 	Return to the time you caused yourself to take part in body practices and tell me when you are there.

K-2 	ARE YOU CURRENTLY DOING ANY EXERCISES?	_________
	Narrative R3RA Triple or Quad, as in K-1, substituting “exercises.”

K-3 	ARE YOU CURRENTLY PRACTICING ANY RITES?	_________
	Narrative R3RA Triple or Quad, as in K-1, substituting “rites.”
K-4 	ARE YOU CURRENTLY PRACTICING YOGA?	_________
	Narrative R3RA Triple or Quad, as in K-1, substituting “yoga.”

K-5 	DO YOU HOLD ANY EASTERN BELIEFS?	_________
	Narrative R3RA Triple or Quad, as in K-1, substituting “eastern beliefs.”

K-6 	ARE YOU DOING ANY MENTAL EXERCISES?	_________
	Narrative R3RA Triple or Quad, as in K-1, substituting “mental exercises.”

K-7 	DO YOU CURRENTLY PRACTICE MEDITATION?	_________
	Narrative R3RA Triple or Quad, as in K-1, substituting “meditation.”

K-8 	HAVE YOU TAKEN PART IN EARLIER PRACTICES BEFORE SCIENTOLOGY?	_________
	Narrative R3RA Triple or Quad, as in K-1, substituting “earlier practices before Scientology.”

K-9 	HAVE YOU TAKEN PART IN EARLIER RELIGIONS?	_________
	Narrative R3RA Triple or Quad, as in K-1, substituting “earlier religions.”

K-10	HAVE YOU TAKEN PART IN EARLIER RITES?	_________
	Narrative R3RA Triple or Quad, as in K-1, substituting “earlier rites.”

K-11	HAVE YOU TAKEN PART IN EARLIER EXERCISES?	_________
	Narrative R3RA Triple or Quad, as in K-1, substituting “earlier exercises.”

K-12	HAVE YOU TAKEN PART IN HYPNOTISM?	_________
	Narrative R3RA Triple or Quad, as in K-1, substituting “hypnotism.”

K-13	HAVE YOU HELD EASTERN BELIEFS?	_________
	Narrative R3RA Triple or Quad, as in K-1, substituting “eastern beliefs . “

K-14	HAVE YOU TAKEN PART IN EARLIER INDOCTRINATIONS? 	_________
	Narrative R3RA Triple or Quad, as in K-1, substituting “earlier indoctrinations . “

K-15	HAVE YOU TAKEN PART IN EARLIER SCIENTIFIC PRACTICES? 	_________
	Narrative R3RA Triple or Quad, as in K-1, substituting “earlier scientific practices.”

K-16	HAVE YOU TAKEN PART IN EARLIER ELECTRONIC PRACTICES? 	_________
	Narrative R3RA Triple or Quad, as in K-1, substituting “earlier electronic practices.”

K-17	HAVE YOU TAKEN PART IN EARLIER THOUGHT PRACTICES? 	_________
	Narrative R3RA Triple or Quad, as in K-1, substituting “earlier thought practices.”

K-18	HAVE YOU TAKEN PART IN EARLIER SPIRITUAL PRACTICES? 	_________
	Narrative R3RA Triple or Quad, as in K-1, substituting “earlier spiritual practices.”

K-19	HAVE YOU TAKEN PART IN EARLIER EASTERN RITES?	_________
	Narrative R3RA Triple or Quad, as in K-1, substituting “earlier eastern rites.”

K-20	HAVE YOU TAKEN PART IN EARLIER EASTERN PRACTICES? 	_________
	Narrative R3RA Triple or Quad, as in K-1, substituting “earlier eastern practices.”

K-21	HAVE YOU TAKEN PART IN EARLIER IMPLANTING TECHNIQUES? 	_________
	Narrative R3RA Triple or Quad, as in K-1, substituting “earlier implanting techniques.”

K-22	HAVE YOU PRACTICED WITCHCRAFT? 	_________
	Narrative R3RA Triple or Quad on practicing witchcraft.
F1: 	Return to the time you had witchcraft practiced on you and tell me when you are there. 
F2: 	Return to the time you practiced witchcraft on another and tell me when you are there. 
F3: 	Return to the time others practiced witchcraft on others and tell me when you are there. 
F0: 	Return to the time you practiced witchcraft on yourself and tell me when you are there.

K-23	HAVE YOU CAST SPELLS? 	_________
	Narrative R3RA Triple or Quad on using spells.
F1: 	Return to the time a spell was used on you and tell me when you are there. 
F2: 	Return to the time you used a spell on another and tell me when you are there. 
F3: 	Return to the time others used spells on others and tell me when you are there. 
F0: 	Return to the time you used a spell on yourself and tell me when you are there.

K-24	ARE YOU DOING SOME EXERCISE BETWEEN SESSIONS?	_________ 
	Narrative R3RA Triple or Quad, as in K-1, substituting “exercises.”

SECTION L—OUT OF VALENCE
ARE YOU BEING SOMEONE ELSE

If items L-1 or L-2 read, the handling is LX3, LX2, LX1 and 220H if necessary.

Ref: 	HCOB 2 Aug 69R 	“LX” LISTS 
	HCOB 5 Nov 69R V  	LX3 (ATTITUDES) 
	HCOB 3 Aug 69R 	LX2 (EMOTIONAL ASSESSMENT LIST) 
	HCOB 9 Aug 69R 	LX1 (CONDITIONS) 
	HCOB 20 Sep 78 II 	LX LIST HANDLING

(If one of these items read on a Clear, OT or Dianetic Clear, indicate the item, let the person tell you about it if he wishes, and indicate the F/N. Do no further handling.)

SECTION M—PRETENDING TRAINING OR GRADES
NOT ATTAINED
(If any item in this section reads on a Clear, OT or Dianetic Clear, indicate the reading item, let the person tell you about it if he wishes, and indicate the F/N.)

M-1 	ARE YOU PRETENDING? 	_________
	Narrative R3RA Triple or Quad on pretending.
F1: 	Return to the time another pretended to you and tell me when you are there. 
F2: 	Return to the time you pretended to another and tell me when you are there. 
F3: 	Return to the time others pretended to others and tell me when you are there. 
F0: 	Return to the time you pretended to yourself and tell me when you are there.

M-2 	ARE YOU PRETENDING TRAINING NOT ATTAINED? 	_________	
	Narrative R3RA Triple or Quad on pretending as in M-1.

M-3 	ARE YOU PRETENDING ATTAINMENTS IN LIFE NOT REALLY ATTAINED? 	_________
	Narrative R3RA Triple or Quad on pretending as in M-1.

M-4 	ARE YOU PRETENDING GRADES NOT ATTAINED? 	_________
	Narrative R3RA Triple or Quad on pretending as in M-1.

SECTION N—AUDITED WITH PRIOR GRADES OUT

N-1 	HAVE YOU BEEN AUDITED WITH PRIOR GRADES OUT?	_________ 
	2WC to find out what grades the pc feels are out. Indicate it. If no F/N, “Is there an earlier time you were audited over that/those outgrade(s)?” Note for C/S.

N-2 	IS YOUR DIANETICS INCOMPLETE? 	_________
	2WC to F/N. Note for C/S.

N-3 	DO ENGRAMS FAIL TO ERASE? 	_________
	L3RF Rundown. (R-Factor: “We are looking for engrams contacted in your early auditing and not fully handled.” Assess L3RF Method 5 with the preface “In your early Dianetics ?” Handle with R3RA over and over until the entire list F/Ns )
	(On a Clear, OT or Dianetic Clear, indicate the read If no F/N you may do an L3RF if needed, however do no handling beyond indicating the reading questions, to F/N.)

N-4 	IS YOUR COMMUNICATION GRADE OUT? 	_________
	2WC to F/N. Program for Expanded or Quad Grade 0

N-5 	IS YOUR PROBLEMS GRADE OUT? 	_________
	2WC to F/N Program for Expanded or Quad Grade I.

N-6 	IS YOUR OVERT/WITHHOLD GRADE OUT? 	_________
	2WC to F/N. Program for Expanded or Quad Grade II.

N-7 	DO YOU HAVE PERSISTING ARC BREAKS? 	_________
	2WC to F/N. Program for Expanded or Quad Grade III.

N-8 	ARE YOU ANXIOUS ABOUT CHANGE?	_________ 
	2WC to F/N. Program for Expanded or Quad Grade III.

N-9 	DO YOU HAVE SERVICE FACSIMILES? 	_________
	2WC to F/N. Program for Expanded or Quad Grade IV.
	
N-10	DO YOU HAVE FIXED IDEAS? 	_________
	2WC to F/N. Program for Expanded or Quad Grade IV.

N-11	ARE YOU CONCERNED ABOUT BEING RIGHT OR WRONG?	_________	 
	2WC to F/N. Program for Expanded or Quad Grade IV.

N-12	HAVE YOU FAILED TO ATTAIN OTHER GRADES? 	_________
	2WC to F/N. Note for C/S.

N-13	HAVE WINS ON GRADES BEEN BYPASSED? 	_________
	Rehab each to F/N.

SECTION O—MISUNDERSTOODS IN AUDITING

O-1 	HAVE YOU HAD MISUNDERSTOODS IN AUDITING? 	_________
	Find and clear the misunderstoods or do a WCCL prefaced with “In auditing.” Dianetic C/S-1 and/or Scientology C/S-1 if needed.

O-2 	HAVE YOU HAD TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING WHAT WAS GOING ON IN A SESSION? 	_________
	Clear this up with Word Clearing on the action that wasn’t understood. Dianetic C/S-1 and/or Scientology C/S-1 if needed.

O-3 	HAVE YOU HAD TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING AN AUDITOR? 	_________
	2WC to F/N. Handle any MUs with Word Clearing on the area the pc didn’t understand. Dianetic C/S-1 and/or Scientology C/S-1 if needed.

O-4 	HAVE YOU HAD TROUBLE IN AUDITING BECAUSE OF MISUNDERSTOODS? 	_________
	Find the misunderstoods and clear them up.

	Note what actions were done over misunderstood words and handle with the proper repair list if needed. Dianetic C/S-1 and/or Scientology C/S-1 if needed.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH: jk 
Copyright © 1971, 1974, 1977, 1978 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 1 JANUARY 1972RA
REVISED & REISSUED AS HCO B 20 NOVEMBER 1974
Remimeo
Auditors	CANCELS
Class III	BTB OF 1 JANUARY 1972R
and above	SAME TITLE

LIX HI-LO TA LIST REVISED

(Cancels earlier list HCO Bs 17 Feb 71
and 22 Feb 71 and 25 Feb 71 and 3 March 71
and 13 March 71 and 1 Jan 72.)

This assessment has been developed to detect all the reasons for high and low TA. There is nothing unusual about the processes necessary to handle these points. This is the full list and is used when a C/S Series 53RI has been done and the high or low TA persists.

Interiorization or a flubbed Interiorization R/D that must be run with WENT IN is the usual reason. Listing errors and out rudiments are another reason.

The list is assessed Method 5. Handle the reads in the order given on HCO B 10 June 71, C/S Series 44R. Any reading questions must be carried to F/N by major action or 2-Way Comm. Can be taken to full F/Ning list.

Must be done by an Auditor who can make a list read with Cramming on TR 1 and Cramming on HCO Bs 28 Feb 71 C/S Series 24, 9 June 71 C/S Series 41, 20 Dec 71 C/S Series 72, 15 June 72 C/S Series 80, 15 Oct 73 C/S Series 87, 20 Nov 73 C/S Series 89, 6 Dec 73 C/S Series 90 and BTB 16 June 71R, Issue I (formerly HCO B 16 June 71 R, Issue II).

HI-LO TA ASSESSMENT

1A. 	IS YOUR INT R/D UNFLAT?	_________ 
If the pc has had an Int R/D, do an Int R/D Correction List and handle the reads. (HCO B 29 Oct 71, Revised 14 May 74.) If the pc has never had an Int R/D, then give him a standard Int R/D providing you have checked out on the Int-Ext pack and have drilled the procedure.

2A. 	WAS YOUR INT R/D MESSED UP? 	_________
	Int R/D Correction List.

3A. 	IS YOUR INT R/D OVERRUN? 	_________
	Int R/D Correction List.

4A. 	HAVE YOU BEEN AUDITED OVER EXTERIOR? 	_________
	Int R/D Correction List or Int R/D.

5A. 	ARE YOU TRAPPED? 	_________
	Int R/D Correction List or Int R/D.

6A. 	YOU WENT IN. 	_________
	Int R/D Correction List or Int R/D.

7A. 	GO IN. 	_________
	Int R/D Correction List or Int R/D.

8A.	ARE YOU OUT AND CAN'T GET IN?	_________
	Int R/D Correction List or Int R/D.

9A. 	ARE YOU IN AND CAN'T GET OUT?	_________
	Int R/D Correction List or Int R/D.

10A	ARE YOU URGENTLY TRYING TO LEAVE?	_________
	Int R/D Correction List or Int R/D.

11A	DO YOU WANT TO GET OUT?	_________
	Int R/D Correction List or Int R/D.

12A	WERE YOU KICKED OUT OF SPACES?	_________
	Int R/D Correction List or Int R/D.

13A	YOU CAN'T GO.	_________
	Int R/D Correction List or Int R/D.

_________

1B. 	IS THERE A LIST ERROR?	_________
Do an L4BR on the earliest lists you can find that have not been corrected. Lacking these, do an L4BR in general. You can go over an L4BR several times handling each read to F/N until the whole L4BR gives nothing but F/Ns.

2B. 	HAS A LIST BEEN OVERLISTED?	_________
	Find out which and handle with an L4BR.

3B. 	WERE YOU GIVEN A WRONG ITEM?	_________
L4BR and handle.

4B. 	ARE YOU UPSET WITH GIVING ITEMS TO THE AUDITOR?	_________
L4BR and handle.

5B. 	WERE YOU GIVEN A WRONG INDICATION?	_________
L4BR and handle.

6B. 	WERE YOU GIVEN A WRONG WHY?	_________
L4BR on the Why Finding. Get the correct Why.

7B. 	HAVE YOU BEEN GIVEN A WRONG PTS ITEM?	_________
L4BR on that PTS Interview. Watch for earlier out PTS Interviews and if they exist, L4BR the earliest one. Watch for earlier S&Ds and if out, correct the earliest of each kind with an L4BR.

8B. 	ARE YOU NOT SATISFIED WITH AN ITEM FOUND ON 
	THE LIST?	_________
L4BR. Correct the List.

9B. 	HAVE READING ITEMS BEEN LEFT CHARGED UP?	_________
L4BR and handle if L&N lists otherwise spot them and clean them by taking to F/N.
_________

1C. 	DO YOU HAVE SOME SORT OF WITHHOLD?	_________
Pull it (them) E/S to F/N. Use "Who" if discreditable.

2C. 	ARE YOU WITHHOLDING SOMETHING?	_________
Get what. 2wc E/S to F/N. Use "Who" if discreditable.

3C. 	IS ANOTHER WITHHOLDING SOMETHING FROM YOU?	_________
Get what. 2wc E/S to F/N.

4C. 	ARE OTHERS WITHHOLDING SOMETHING FROM OTHERS?	_________
Get what. 2wc E/S to F/N.

5C. 	HAS ANOTHER COMMITTED OVERTS ON YOU?	_________
Get what. 2wc E/S to F/N.

6C. 	HAVE YOU COMMITTED ANY OVERTS?	_________
Get what. 2wc E/S to F/N.

7C. 	HAVE OTHERS COMMITTED OVERTS ON OTHERS?	_________
Get what. 2wc E/S to F/N.

8C. 	ARE YOU NOT-ISING OVERTS?	_________
Get what. 2wc E/S to F/N.

9C. 	YOU'RE NOT SAYING?	_________
Get what. 2wc E/S to F/N.

10C	HAVE YOU COMMITTED CRIMES?	_________
Get what. 2wc E/S to F/N.

11C	ARE YOU COMMITTING CRIMES IN PT?	_________
Get what. 2wc E/S to F/N.

12C	ARE YOU PROTESTING?	_________
Get what. 2wc E/S to F/N.

13C	ARE YOU HIDING?	_________
2wc E/S to F/N.

14C	YOU DON'T LIKE IT.	_________
Get what. 2wc E/S to F/N.

15C	ARE THERE UNDISCLOSED PROBLEMS?	_________
Get what. 2wc E/S to F/N.

16C	IS THERE A LIE?	_________
Get what. 2wc E/S to F/N.

17C	ARE THERE CONSIDERATIONS NOT MENTIONED?	_________
Get what. 2wc E/S to F/N.

18C	DO YOU HAVE OPINIONS YOU DON'T DARE SAY?	_________
Get what. 2wc E/S to F/N.

19C	ARE YOU HERE FOR UNDISCLOSED REASONS?	_________
Get what. 2wc E/S to F/N.

20C	ARE YOU NOT TELLING YOUR AUDITOR YOUR COG-
NITIONS?	_________
Get what. 2wc E/S to F/N.

21C	ARE YOU WITHHOLDING YOUR ACTUAL CASE STATE?	_________
2wc E/S to F/N.

22C	ARE YOU UNWILLING TO TALK TO THE AUDITOR?	_________
2wc on things he can't say E/S to F/N.

23C. ARE THERE DISAGREEMENTS? 	_________
Run 2wc E/S to F/N: Fl. Tell me about others' disagreements with you. F2. Tell me about your disagreements with others. F3. Tell me about others' disagreements with others.

24C	HAVE YOU BEEN AUDITED OVER AN	ARC BREAK?	_________ 
		PROBLEM? 	_________
		WITHHOLD? 	_________
	Indicate it and handle E/S to F/N.

25C	DO YOU FEEL SAD? 	_________
	Handle the ARC Break as an ARC Break of Long Duration.

26C	DO YOU HAVE AN ARC BREAK? 	_________
	Handle the ARC Break.

27C	DO YOU FEEL UPSET? 	_________
	Handle the ARC Break.

28C	DO YOU FEEL RUSHED? 	_________
	2wc E/S to F/N.

29C	DO YOU FEEL TIRED?	_________ 
	2wc E/S to F/N.

30C	YOU CAN'T GET IT. 	_________
	Find out what and 2wc E/S to F/N.

_________

1D. ARE YOU TAKING OR SMOKING DRUGS?	_________
2wc to F/N. Rehab releases on each "Drug" taken to F/N. If pc has had a Drug R/D, do L3RD on it and handle. Program the pc for a Drug R/D or verification of it if it is incomplete or there are "No Interest" items.

2D. 	DID YOU ONCE TAKE DRUGS?	_________ 
2wc to F/N. Rehab releases on each drug to F/N. L3RD on Drug R/D if he had one. Program for Drug R/D or verification if incomplete.

3D. 	HAVE YOU TAKEN LSD? 	_________
2wc to F/N. Drug Rehabs. L3RD on Drug R/D if he had one. Program for full Drug R/D or verification if unflat.

4D. 	HAVE YOU DRUNK ALCOHOL?	_________ 
2wc to F/N. Drug/Alcohol Rehabs. L3RD on Drug R/D if he had one. Program for full Drug R/D or verification if unflat.

5D. 	HAVE YOU SMOKED POT? 	_________
2wc to F/N. Drug Rehabs. L3RD on Drug R/D if he had one. Program for full Drug R/D or verification if unflat.

6D. 	ARE YOU TAKING MEDICINE?	_________ 
2wc to F/N. Drug/Medicine Rehabs. L3RD on Drug R/D if he had one. Program for full Drug R/D or verification if unflat.

7D. 	DID YOU ONCE TAKE MEDICINE? 	_________
2wc to F/N. Drug/Medicine Rehabs. L3RD on Drug R/D if he had one. Program for full Drug R/D or verification if unflat.

1E. 	IS THERE AN ENGRAM IN RESTIMULATION?	_________
	Find out which and do L3RD and handle per its instructions.

2E. 	ARE THERE UNFLAT CHAINS?	_________
	Find out what chains and L3RD on each.

3E. 	DO YOU HAVE A STUCK PICTURE?	_________
Indicate it. Do an L3RD on it. You can also unstick it by having him recall a time before it and recall a time after it. D/L if necessary. C/S can order Pictures and Masses Remedy Dn done after this list is handled—if necessary.

4E. 	DO YOU HAVE PICTURES IN RESTIMULATION?	_________
	L3RD and handle. Pictures and Masses Remedy Dn.

5E. 	DO YOU HAVE MASSES IN RESTIMULATION?	_________
	L3RD and handle. Pictures and Masses Remedy Dn.

6E. 	HAS THE SAME ENGRAM BEEN RUN TWICE?	_________
	L3RD and handle.

7E. 	YOU CAN'T SEE ENGRAMS TOO WELL.	_________
Do L3RD Method 5 and handle. Program for L3RD Rundown if necessary.

8E. 	IS IT INVISIBLE?	_________
	Spot the invisible field or picture. L3RD on it and handle.

9E. 	IS IT ALL BLACK?	_________
	Spot the black field or picture. L3RD on it and handle.

10E	HAS THERE BEEN A LOSS?	_________
Do L3RD on it and handle. Run it out R3R Triple if not run out and still not handled.

11E	HAVE YOU LOST ANYTHING?	_________
Do L3RD on it and handle. If not yet run out and still unhandled run R3R Triple.
_________

1F. 	HAS THE SAME THING BEEN RUN TWICE?	_________
	Clean up any protest and inval and rehab to F/N.

2F. 	HAS THE SAME ACTION BEEN DONE BY ANOTHER AUDI-
	TOR?	_________
	Clean up any protest and inval and rehab to F/N.
1G. 	ARE YOU DOING SOMETHING WITH THE MIND BETWEEN
	SESSIONS?	_________
Find out what it is. If Yoga or Mystic exercises or some such, 2wc E/S to first time done, find out what upset had occurred before that and if TA now down, do L1C on that period of pc's life.

2G. 	ARE YOU INVOLVED IN SOME OTHER PRACTICE?	_________
Find out what it is. If Yoga or Mystic exercises or some such, 2wc E/S to first time done, L1C on the prior upset or period of pc's life just before that.

1H.	ARE THERE WORD CLEARING ERRORS? 	_________
	Do a Word Clearing Correction List, handle all reads.

2H.	ARE THERE STUDY ERRORS? 	_________
2wc E/S to F/N and add a Student Rehabilitation List (HCO B 15 Nov 74) or full Study Correction List (BTB 4 Feb 72RC) to the pc's Program.
_________

1I. 	HAVE YOU EVER HAD TROUBLE WITH YOUR TA OR F/Ns?	_________ 
Use HCOBs 24 Oct 71, 12 Nov 71, 18 Feb 72, 29 Feb 72, 23 Nov 73, all on False TA. Then clean up the bypassed charge with 1) Assess for best read a) TA worries b) F/N worries. 2) Then 2wc times he has worried about (item) E/S to F/N. 3) Rehab any overruns due to False TA obscuring F/Ns.

2I. 	HAVE YOU HAD A FALSE TA? Handle as in 1I.	_________

3I. 	ARE YOU USING THE WRONG SIZED CANS? Handle as in 1I.	_________

4I. 	DO YOUR HANDS GET TIRED IN AUDITING? Handle as in 1I.	_________

5I. 	ARE YOUR HANDS DRY? Handle as in 1I.	_________

6I. 	ARE YOUR FEET DRY? Handle as in 1I.	_________

7I. 	ARE YOUR HANDS WET? Handle as in 1I.	_________

8I. 	ARE YOUR FEET WET? Handle as in 1I.	_________

9I. 	DO YOU LOOSEN YOUR GRIP ON THE CANS? Handle as in 1I.	_________

10I	ARE YOU USING THE WRONG HAND CREAM? Handle as in 1I	_________

_________

1J. 	HAVE YOU BEEN SELF AUDITING?	_________ 
2wc to first time. L1C on the prior upset or if prior upset was in auditing use the appropriate correction list and an L1C on that time.

2J. 	WAS A WRONG OVERRUN FOUND? 	_________
Correct it to F/N by indication and rehabbing the right overrun.

3J. 	HAS THERE BEEN AN OVERRUN IN LIFE? 	_________
	Locate, indicate, rehab to F/N.

4J. 	HAS THERE BEEN AN OVERRUN IN AUDITING? 	_________
	Locate, indicate, rehab to F/N.

5J. 	HAS THERE BEEN SOMETHING WRONG WITH F/Ns? 	_________
	Indicate. 2wc E/S to F/N. Rehab if necessary.

6J. 	HAVE F/Ns BEEN OVERRUN?	_________
	Indicate. 2wc E/S to F/N. Rehab if necessary.

7J. 	HAVE F/Ns NOT BEEN INDICATED?	_________
	Indicate. 2wc E/S to F/N. Rehab if necessary.

8J. 	HAVE F/Ns BEEN MISSED?	_________
	Indicate. 2wc E/S to F/N. Rehab if necessary.

9J. 	HAVE AUDITING QUESTIONS NOT BEEN UNDERSTOOD?	_________
2wc, get them properly understood with Word Clearing, E/S if needed to F/N.

10J 	HAVE ITEMS NOT REALLY READ?	_________
	2wc E/S to F/N.

11J 	DID YOU SAY SOMETHING MUST HAVE READ?	_________
	2wc E/S to F/N.

12J 	WERE YOU STILL UPSET WHEN SOMEBODY THOUGHT IT
	WAS HANDLED?	_________
	Find and handle to F/N.

13J 	HAVE YOU HAD BAD AUDITING?	_________
	2wc E/S to F/N.

14J 	ARE THERE INCOMPLETE ACTIONS?	_________
	2wc E/S to F/N.

15J 	HAS THERE BEEN ANY INVALIDATION?	_________
	2wc E/S to F/N.

16J 	HAS THERE BEEN ANY EVALUATION?	_________
	2wc E/S to F/N.

17J 	COULDN'T YOU GET AUDITING?	_________
	2wc E/S to F/N.

18J 	HAVE THERE BEEN INTERRUPTIONS?	_________
	2wc E/S to F/N.

19J 	DOES YOUR AUDITOR OVERWHELM YOU?	_________
	2wc E/S to F/N.

20J 	DO YOU FEEL ATTACKED?	_________
	2wc E/S to F/N.

21J 	ARE YOU SCARED OF WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN IN AUDIT-
	ING?	_________
	2wc E/S to F/N.

22J 	ARE YOU TALKING TO OTHERS ABOUT YOUR CASE?	_________
	2wc E/S to F/N.

23J 	ARE YOU LISTENING TO OTHERS TALK ABOUT THEIR
	CASES?	_________
	2wc E/S to F/N.

24J 	HAVE YOU BEEN LOOKING AT OR LISTENING TO TECH
	MATERIALS YOU SHOULDN'T?	_________
	2wc E/S to F/N.

25J	ARE YOU WAITING FOR SOMETHING TO HAPPEN?	_________
	2wc E/S to F/N.
_________

1K.	SOME SORT OF CAN'T HAVE?	_________
	Find correct Havingness process and remedy.

2K. 	IS YOUR HAVINGNESS LOW?	_________
	Find correct Havingness process and remedy.	

_________

1L. 	IS SOMEONE OR SOMETHING HOSTILE TO YOU?	_________
Check for SP with a PTS Interview or get a full PTS R/D programmed.

2L. 	ARE YOU PTS?	_________
	PTS Interview or get a full PTS R/D programmed.

3L. 	ARE YOU CONNECTED TO SOMEONE HOSTILE TO DIA-
	NETICS OR SCIENTOLOGY?	_________
	PTS Interview or get a full PTS R/D programmed.

4L. 	DO YOU FEEL SUPPRESSED?	_________
	PTS Interview or get a full PTS R/D programmed.

_________

1M.	HAS SOMETHING GONE ON TOO LONG?	_________
Find out what. Clean up any protest. Rehab to F/N on each (or date to blow, locate to blow if qualified).

2M.	YOU WENT ON BY A RELEASE POINT?	_________
	Find out what. Clean up any protest. Rehab to F/N or D/L.

3M.	HAS SOMETHING BEEN OVERRUN?	_________
	Find out what. Clean up any protest. Rehab to F/N or D/L.

4M.	THE AUDITOR KEPT ON GOING.	_________
	Find out what. Clean up any protest. Rehab to F/N or D/L.

5M.	HAS THERE BEEN ANY OVER-REPAIR?	_________
	Find out what. Clean up any protest. Rehab to F/N or D/L.

6M.	ARE YOU PUZZLED ABOUT WHY THE AUDITOR KEEPS
	ON?	_________
	Find out what. Clean up any protest. Rehab to F/N or D/L.
7M.	ARE THERE STOPS?	_________
	Find out what. Clean up any protest. Rehab to F/N or D/L.

_________

1N. 	HAVE YOU SEPARATED OUT?	_________
2wc E/S to F/N. Then Triple Expanded Grade Two or L10 on Advance Program.

2N. 	ARE YOU SOMEBODY ELSE?	_________
	2wc E/S to F/N. Program for LX Lists.

3N. 	DO YOU THINK SOMETHING ELSE IS WRONG?	_________
2wc to find what. Note BD item. If BD item is covered by one of the other questions on the list, handle per instructions. Otherwise, GF M5 and handle.

4N. 	ARE YOU PHYSICALLY ILL?	_________
2wc to find what. Note BD item. 2wc to F/N and get further C/S instructions for handling if necessary.

_________

1O.	ARE WE REPAIRING A TA THAT ISN'T HIGH?	_________
Get pc to tell you about it briefly. If correct, then indicate to F/N. Go E/S and indicate it if no F/N on first. If False TA, handle per 1I above.

2O. 	ARE WE REPAIRING A TA THAT ISN'T LOW?	_________
Get pc to tell you about it briefly. If correct, then indicate to F/N. Go E/S and indicate it if no F/N on first. If False TA, handle per 1I above.

3O. 	IS THE METER FAULTY?	_________
Get pc to tell you about it briefly. If correct, then indicate to F/N. Go E/S and indicate it if no F/N on first.

4O. 	IS THERE NOTHING WRONG?	_________
Get pc to tell you about it briefly. If correct, then indicate to F/N. Go E/S and indicate it if no F/N on first.

_________

1P. 	WAS THERE A FALSE EXAM REPORT?	_________
	Indicate and 2wc to F/N.

2P. 	HAVE YOU HAD TO WAIT AT THE EXAMINER?	_________
	Indicate and 2wc to F/N.

3P. 	HAVE YOU BEEN UPSET BY THE EXAMINER?	_________
	Indicate and 2wc to F/N.

L. RON HUBBARD 
Founder 
LRH: nt .rd 
Copyright © 1972, 1974 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
		
HCO BULLETIN OF 16 OCTOBER 1978
Class IV Grad
Chksht	(Cancels and replaces HCOB 21 Dec 75R
Class VI	Repair List for Prepared Lists.)
Checksheet
C/Ses
REPAIR CORRECTION LIST

Use this list to clean up bypassed charge on improperly done or unnecessary prepared lists or repair actions. This list is done when a pc protests a prepared list or repair action, when BIs are present on the subject of repair or prepared lists or when improper past repair or use of correction lists reads on a correction list.

Assess this list Method 5 and handle all reads. The EP of this list is charge off the subject of repair and prepared lists and the pc happy about being audited. This list can, if necessary, be reassessed and taken to an F/Ning assessment.

The words “prepared list,” “repair” and all other words on this list should be fully cleared with the pc before assessing this list on him. However, if the pc is very upset and the words have not yet been cleared, assess the list to handle the charge and check with the pc for any MUs on the assessment. (Ref: HCOB 9 Aug 78 II CLEARING COMMANDS)

1. 	HAVE YOU GONE EXTERIOR IN AUDITING? 	________
	If the pc has never had an Int RD, do an Int RD per HCOB 4 Jan 71R Int RD Series 2 EXTERIORIZATION AND HIGH TA THE INT RD REVISED if you have checked out on the Int Series and are a NED auditor.

	If the pc has had an Int RD, do an Int RD Correction List Revised (HCOB 29 Oct 71 RA) or end off for C/S instructions to do an End of Endless Int Repair RD per HCOB 24 Sep 78 I URGENT IMPORTANT END OF ENDLESS INT REPAIR RD.

2. 	HAS YOUR INT RD BEEN MESSED UP? 	________
	Do an Int RD Correction List or end off for C/S instructions to do the End of Endless Int Repair RD.

3. 	DO YOU HAVE AN OUT-LIST? 	________
	L4BRA.

4. 	HAVE YOU HAD TOO MANY PREPARED LISTS DONE ON YOU? 	________
	Indicate. Itsa E/S itsa to F/N or Date/Locate the first successful prepared list.

5. 	HAVE YOU HAD UNNECESSARY REPAIRS? 	________
	Indicate. Itsa E/S itsa to F/N or Date/Locate the first valid repair.

6. 	HAS AN AUDITOR MISSED A READ?	________ 
	Get what, itsa E/S itsa to F/N, or handle as needed.

7. 	DID YOU THINK SOMETHING SHOULD HAVE READ WHEN IT DIDN’T? 	________
	Get what, itsa E/S itsa to F/N, or handle as needed.

8. 	HAS AN ITEM NOT READ WHEN IT SHOULD HAVE? 	________
	Get what, itsa E/S itsa to F/N, or handle as needed.

9. 	HAS THERE BEEN A FALSE READ? 	________
	Indicate. Itsa E/S itsa to F/N.

10. 	WERE YOU TOLD SOMETHING READ WHEN YOU DIDN’T SEE HOW IT COULD HAVE? 	________
	Get what, indicate it was a false read. Itsa E/S itsa to F/N.

11. 	DID THE AUDITOR TAKE UP AN ITEM WITH NO CHARGE ON IT? 	________
	Indicate. Itsa E/S itsa to F/N.

12. 	WERE YOU GIVEN A PREPARED LIST TO HANDLE HIGH TA WHEN YOUR TA WASN’T HIGH?	________ 
	Indicate. Itsa E/S itsa to F/N.

13. 	WERE YOU GIVEN A PREPARED LIST TO HANDLE LOW TA WHEN YOUR TA WASN’T LOW? 	________
	Indicate. Itsa E/S itsa to F/N.

14. 	HAS THERE BEEN A TIME WHEN YOU DIDN’T WANT TO DO A PREPARED LIST AND THE AUDITOR DID ONE ANYWAY? 	________
	Indicate. Itsa E/S itsa to F/N.

15. 	HAS THERE BEEN A TIME WHEN YOU DIDN’T WANT TO GET A REPAIR ACTION AND YOU WERE GIVEN ONE ANYWAY? 	________
	Indicate. Itsa E/S itsa to F/N.

16. 	WHILE BEING AUDITED ON A PREPARED LIST DID YOU JUST WANT TO GET ON WITH IT? 	________
	Indicate. Itsa E/S itsa to F/N.

17. 	DID YOU TELL THE AUDITOR SOMETHING WAS HANDLED JUST TO BE DONE WITH IT? 	________
	Indicate. Itsa E/S itsa to F/N. Note for C/S.

18. 	HAS OVERREPAIR KEPT YOU FROM GOING UP THE GRADE CHART?	________ 
	Indicate. Itsa E/S itsa to F/N.

19. 	HAVE YOU BEEN TOLD A REPAIR ACTION WOULD HANDLE YOUR CASE WHEN IT DIDN’T? 	________
	Indicate. 2WC to F/N or 2WC for data.

20. 	HAS AN AUDITOR MISASSESSED A PREPARED LIST ON YOU? 	________
	Itsa E/S itsa to F/N.

21. 	WHEN YOU HAD A PREPARED LIST DONE, DID IT FAIL TO HANDLE THE BYPASSED CHARGE? 	________
	Itsa E/S itsa to F/N.

22. 	DID A REPAIR ACTION FAIL TO HANDLE WHAT WAS REALLY WRONG? 	________
	Itsa E/S itsa to F/N.

23. 	HAVE YOU BEEN ASSESSED BY AN AUDITOR WITH BAD TRs? 	________
	Itsa E/S itsa to F/N.

24. 	HAS AN AUDITOR TOLD YOU YOU HAD AN F/N WHEN YOU KNEW YOU DIDN’T? 	________
	Itsa E/S itsa to F/N.

25. 	DID AN AUDITOR EVER INDICATE AN ASSESSMENT WAS F/NING WHEN YOU KNEW IT WASN’T? 	________
	Itsa E/S itsa to F/N.

26. 	WERE YOU ASKED TO DECLARE A CYCLE YOU FELT WASN’T COMPLETE? 	________
	Itsa E/S itsa to F/N.

27. 	DID YOU EVER FEEL A PREPARED LIST SHOULD HAVE F/NED ON AN ASSESSMENT WHEN IT DIDN’T? 	________
	Indicate. Rehab the EP or Date/Locate the point.

28. 	ON A REPAIR ACTION, WERE YOU PREVENTED FROM ATTESTING? 	________
	Indicate. Date/Locate the EP of the repair.

29. 	HAS YOUR REPAIR BEEN REPAIRED OFTEN? 	________
	Indicate. Itsa E/S itsa to F/N or Date/Locate the first successful repair.

30. 	HAS AN F/N BEEN MISSED? 	________
	Indicate. Rehab it.

31. 	HAS A WIN BEEN BYPASSED? 	________
	Indicate. Rehab.

32. 	HAS SOMETHING BEEN OVERRUN? 	________
	Get what. Rehab it.

33. 	IS THERE SOME OTHER BYPASSED CHARGE? 	________
	Find what and handle.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH:mm.dr 
Copyright © 1978 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED