6202C21 SHSpec-114  Use of Prepchecking

     In prepchecking, you are trying to find underlying overts; that is what
the when, all, who refers to.  You are not just getting withholds.  You are
interested in chains of overts.  The anatomy of the mind is that the basic
incident holds She chain of incidents in place.  You are not looking for the
hidden part of a single incident; you are looking for the hidden earliest
incident.  The PC sees only the most recent incident until you get him to
as-is by telling you the when, all, and who.  We aren't looking for
basic-basic on it because that is anchored in a valence which you will only
find in 3DXX. Prepchecking is limited to this lifetime; the chain will blow if
this lifetime's basic is found.

     So "What" questions never apply to only one incident; neither do the
when, all and who.  You have great fluidity in what questions you ask.  The
"what" question, however, should be specific enough to find a chain.
Different dates come up on question two.  You try to clear the "What" you've
got.  If you can't, find the subsidiary chain and clear it.  If you can't
clear that, clear the subsidiary chain it depends on, etc., etc.  Stay on the
same subject.

     The zero question is just a rudiments question that gives a starting
point.  You can go with these by dynamics, get a kind of one question, then
follow that down to a withhold and get a real one question.  LRH has used,
e.g. for the initial one question, "What about your physical difficulties?",
the question, "What physical difficulty would it be unsafe to reveal?", got a
list, got an item reading well which now gives a proper one question, "What
about rectum trouble?", and one can go back to work.  The only riskiness in
this case was that it led to an identity, the PC's little brother.  We try not
to use identities in prepchecking, but if that is all you can get, well....
The inevitable question, if some subject doesn't clear up, is, "What have you
done to _______ ?" There must be something there, just from the basics of the
overt-motivator sequence.

     You don't treat every withhold as a new "what" question.  When the PC
gives one, ask, "What about this chain of withholds?" That is, you should
phrase it as a more general action, but not so general as to take in the whole
reactive bank.  You work your way down to something that clears, then work on
back.  You may get hung up along the way back, requiring some new chain.  The
PC could jump chains.  Follow along as necessary, but be sure to retrace your
steps.  It all depends on the fact that hidden information exists on the chain
someplace.  When you get that, the whole chain will unravel.  The overt may be
quite mild.  You are looking for a needle in a haystack, so don't look.  Just
run the system and it will show up.

     The best way to establish the question is by the approach described
here.  It is called prepchecking, because it is preparatory to clearing.
Prepchecking gets the PC's rudiments sufficiently cleaned up so 3DXX can be
done with more ease.  That is why the basic prepcheck questions are ruds
questions.  For the withhold rud, use a Form 3 [see p. 186] and Form 6a.  [See
HCOPL 3Feb62 "Auditor Processing Check".  This is a shortened form of Form 6
and is intended for students who have done a fair amount of auditing.]   For
problems, you have the Problems Intensive.  You prepcheck the withholds the PC
comes up with in prior confusion areas.  You can do the same with end ruds:
half-truths, untruths, etc.  For the question about influencing the E-meter,
you can handle it more broadly, with "meters', "electronic gear", "mind
reading", etc., so the PC can be at ease with the meter.  Get his ruds in with
a thud and they won't get in the way during 3DXX.

     When you change valences because of 3DXX, new areas will come to view.
But finding a new valence because of 3DXX doesn't mean the PC moves out of and
abandons all his old valences.  The 3D problems mass pulls apart a bit; it has
less influence on him than before, but, just before you find this, the PC will
dramatize the new valence coming up.  That dramatization influences the case
and tends to throw ruds out.  Put if the PC is already capable of being kept
in session, the influence of it is minimal.  You don't have to pay a lot of
attention to it.  The PC will have cognitions, come up with withholds, not as
part of ruds, but as part of 3DXX.  You could omit the prepcheck, in fact, but
then the 3DXX would take about four times as long to do because of the upsets
that 3DXX tends to produce anyway.  Prepchecking tends to improve stability on
a case by handling O/W's, so the PC is not in for a big shock when running
3DXX uncovers new material.  A well done prepcheck is like a complete
psychoanalysis every three or four hours.

     A person can become very morose, upset and low doing 3DXX.  If you will
ever have trouble with his ruds, it is now.  So it is nice to be able to get
ruds in.  Prepchecking is also valuable just in itself.

     After you have all the PC's terminals and oppterms all laid out on their
line plot, don't be sure that you have seen the last of prepchecking.
Probably a similar technique will be used to take these items to pieces.
Therefore, you are not concerned, before you have the GPM isolated, with any
past-life activity.  Those are the withholds of a whole life, which you find
with 3DXX.

     Since the basic holds the chain down, you don't struggle too hard with
some sticky withhold; if it keeps reading and doesn't clean up with your 2, 3,
and 4, there is something else to look for.

