6205C03 SHSpec-142  Craftsmanship -- Fundamentals

     A session missed withhold is anything the PC thought but didn't tell the
auditor.  That is fins for the session, but in prepchecking, you want meat,
not skim milk.  You want meaningful acts.  It isn't necessarily antisocial or
unmannerly acts like masturbation or nose-picking -- embarrassing acts -- that
you are looking for.  What you are looking for is overts, not just seamy
withholds.  There is a difference.

                          [Comments on the above TVD]

     You can have a chain based on a not-knowingness, even if there is nothing
there to be not-known.  This isn't common.  [Missed withhold of nothing.]

     You never give up on the fundamentals.  When the PC gets nattery, he has
a missed withhold, whether the natter has any basis in reason or not.  Not
many.  You audit by those.  You should get your own reality on this.  It can
be crammed down your throat, but it is better understanding, since a stable
datum fixed in by a confusion and not by understanding isn't available in a
tight spot.  This leads to auditing by being reasonable.  Fundamentals are
meant to be used.  If I tell you something is a fundamental, don't just
believe it is.  Find out if it is or is not in your own universe.  It will be,
but if you never find this out for yourself, You will just keep going on by
rote and ritual.  If you do find this out for yourself, you will not need all
your old stable data or superstitions.

     "What I expect of an auditor is to audit the PC that is right there in
front of him by the most fundamental fundamentals that he can command and
understand." He will always get wins that way, and he won't be in a fog about
any of it.  He will be able to evaluate importances in the ritual.

     In prepchecking, your "What" question will often miss the mark by a bit,
because, after all, until you have done the prepcheck, you don't know exactly
what the chain is.  And if it is that unknown to the PC, how could you know
all about it before you found out from the PC?  Besides, all basic incidents
must be unknown at least in part, or the chain would blow.  Auditing by
fundamentals, you know enough about the chain to formulate a "what" question
that will come close enough to get what you need.  As you go earlier, you find
yourself asking about similar things, but not the exact same overt at the
earlier time.  You get a "what" question that describes the incident in
workably general terms and go from there, hoping for the best.  All you have
to null is the incident that you got the "what" question from.

     Prepchecking is not an exact activity.  It depends on the PC in front of
you.  Because it is inexact, you must do it in the framework of total
exactitude that is given in Model Session, TRs, metering -- all your
fundamentals that must be known solidly.  When you have that, you can play by
ear with confidence and results.

     Any craftsman can create the illusion of terrific ease and
offhandedness.  However, the common denominator of all great art is "a great
ability to do a small detail." If one tries to shortcut the ability to do the
details and just does the offhanded action, the result is slop.  An auditor's
tiny details consist of the meter, TRs, Model Session, etc.

     How do you get to be a superb auditor?  By knowing all these small parts
perfectly.  If you find yourself wondering about any one of them, you must
practice, drill to get it straightened out.  You can go over these items and
ask yourself if any of them have been shaky in recent sessions, and work on
what you find.  Don't let embarrassment stop you from finding out [what needs
to be worked on].  Only when you have mastered the detail will you be free to
audit the PC in front of you.  You won't be free to audit the PC in front of
you as long as you are enslaved by "don't knows" among your auditing tools,
because you get a chain of error that mounts in She session, based on the
basic not-knowingness.

     Don't think that you will get results, real, honest-to-God results, if
you are anything less than a master of the craft.  That is the discouraging
point of auditing.  The running of repetitive processes without attention on
the PC, hoping far the best, does make a lot of people well, as does engram
running.  This could get long-time auditors stuck in a win.  But we haven't
had techniques prior to 1962 that reached all cases.  We have them now, but
they require precision auditing, a master's touch.  You have to find out that
the technology we have does give the PC wins.  You find that out by auditing
and seeing the results.  If you know all the parts: TRs, metering, Model
Session, etc., then you can audit by fundamentals with confidence and ease.
There is no more tension.

