6106C20 SHSpec-16  Sec Check Questions.  Mutual Rudiments

     The perfect answer to any question is the exact question.  When it is
correctly asked, it is answered.  Say you are trying to lay out serving
equipment in a hotel kitchen.  When you finally spot exactly what you're
doing, you perceive that you are not arranging machinery but trying to
accomplish some exact result, like trying to get food from A to B.  In asking
the person who's going to use it what he needs, you are getting a more precise
phrasing of the real question you wanted to ask.  When you have all the data
to define the exact question, you will have the answer.

     The borderline between the Reactive Mind and the analytical mind is the
broad savannah of "I don't know." Things get foggy on it; the PC knows
something is there, but sees nothing very clearly.  The auditor's action in
compartmenting and clarifying the question helps to pinpoint the source of fog
for the PC.  [The exact answer to a problem is the exact problem, when
correctly phrased, or as-ised.  This is why a repetitive look at a problem and
rephrasing of it will cause a resolution.]

     We have made a recent discovery of magnitude.  We've known that co-audit
teams tended to make less progress than HGC Auditing, but not why.  The answer
is now known.  The first clue was the D of P's finding auditors' ruds on PC's
out even when the auditor found them in.  It turns out that the ruds weren't
out with the auditor.

It was mutual ruds of the team that were out with others but not the team.
For instance, the pair agree the PC's family are swine, so it won't read on
ruds, but someone else who isn't in on the agreement will find the PC's out
ruds.  The meter registers on disagreements.  One way to solve it is Formula
13 [failed help and O/W on terminals, alternated.  See HCOB 1Dec60.], cleaning
up all the people who read, or on ruds, substituting "we" for "you".  Even CCH's can do it.

