6506C29 SHSpec-64 The Well-Rounded Auditor

     MSH audited LRH to first-stage release on 24Feb63.  They went ahead.  He
went keyed-out OT.  Then he did more research and plowed himself into the R6
bank.  Then he developed power processes.  Power processes were totally
predicted, not empirical.  "There they should be, ... and there they were."
LRH ran the power processes solo.  When he got to the end, all that was there
was beginning of track and the R6 bank.  He backed off and looked for
processes that would enable someone to have an ability back.  He got third
stage release (Va).  [See HCOB 28Jun65 "Releases, Different Kinds", HCOB
12Jul65 "States of Being Attained by Processing", HCOB 5Aug65 "Release
Stages", and pp. 733-738, below.] You can run it too far: into the bank, i.e.
into R6EW.  But now you are at the correct end of

     A third stage release can go into and out of the R6 bank at will.  He is
also able to have selective abilities. [This probably made Class VI easier.]

     We are getting an interesting reaction from orgs: "Why are you sending us
a Class VII [Note: At this point, a Class VII is a power auditor.]?  We're
releasing all the people we want on 0, I, and II."  The differences between
the stages of release are basically differences of stability.  The fellow has
been gotten to a state where he can postulate, when he is released.  At Level
IV, a person can remain a keyed-out clear until he makes a postulate
wrong-way-to and keys himself in again, and the R6 bank kicks him in the
teeth.  A power release is more stable.  We still don't get a keyed-out OT at
will, although it does occur sometimes, during power processing.

     It is easy to overrun a first stage release.  We have cleared many
people, by the Book One definition of "clear", and then overrun them, because
the auditor didn't recognize a floating needle.  After that, the PC could get
very ARC breaky.  All that could be done with a PC like this is to run him on
power and bring him to a higher degree of stability.  Power can also be
overrun.  If you overrun power and then audit someone on ordinary processes
within power processing, you would really be in trouble, because where is only
one thing there to hack at, and that's the H6 bank.  You could audit some
selective abilities with power plus -- run him up to third stage release,
playing tag with the R6 bank -- then go on to audit R6.

     It is highly unlikely that a person will make clear, unless he has been
released on power.  The route through the bank is too hard, when it lies
across an engram that will revivify.  You are sitting in an engram, trying to
run R6, and it won't as-is properly.  That is the trouble with it.

     It is interesting to watch raw meat on power.  They don't know about the
R6 bank.  They feel wonderful and full of awe, because they don't know what
the Hell happened or what is going on, after being run on power processes.

     Technical advances are out of this world, administratively.  R6 and power
look very simple and elementary.  The trick in instructing Class VII [Note:
Class VII is now power auditing] is to get the simplicity of the processes and
procedures duplicated, when the students are used to complexity.  Confusion
has to blow off.  You run power processes muzzled.

     The study materials have more to them than would at first appear to be
the case.  The evaluation of importances is one area.  For instance a darkroom
worker who works for LRH on weekends knows lots of tricks, but he doesn't know
fundamental importances.  LRH spotted the similarity to new auditors who
aren't fully trained in fundamentals.  They want tricks and short-cuts, all of
which are interesting, but unimportant.  It isn't the tricks that get anyone
anywhere.  That is what psychiatry and psychology do.  They collect tricks
like stamp collectors, but they have no effective standard basic tech.  "I
have never heard one of them utter one essential piece of information that
would have led to the resolution of a case.  Fantastic hors d'oeuvres; no main
course."  So the study phenomenon is "There's the fellow who knows it and can
do it, and the there's the fellow who knows all the tricks and can't do it."
It is out evaluation of importances.  You can take a basically sound piece of
data, e.g., that a PC who never looks at the auditor or who slews around to
sit sideways in the chair is ARC broken, and twist it to something like,
"Never acknowledge a PC until he looks at you."  If you did this on power, the
PC would go "round the bend.  He'd go on automatic.

     There is mainline information, and then there are tidbits.  An auditor in
training should differentiate between:

     1.  Mainline data, which is very senior.

     2.  Data you should know to apply the senior data.

     3.  "Parsley" data: data that, if you use it, it will make you look very
         clever.  Nice data, but of no great value.

When someone like LRH shifts a senior datum, people go adrift.  For instance
"Audit the PC in front of you," was senior, before grades and organization.
An org auditor doesn't audit the PC in front of him at all.  The auditor now
audits the process.  If he sees BI's or runs into trouble, he sends the PC to
review.  There is a policy letter now, with all the things on it that could be
wrong with the PC [HCOPL 7Apr70RA "Green Form"].  It is asking too much to
expect the auditor to pick up the right one in session, with no form, out of
44 possibilities, especially when the PC may have overts on that auditor.  The
PC should be repaired by some other auditor.  The auditor may be part of what
is wrong.  Hence the PC needs another auditor.

     Review auditors must be experts in assessment.  They pick up any read and
straighten out whatever needs to be fixed.  Whatever the problem is, it is not
standard tech that is the problem.  The review auditor is in a different
division [Qual].  The D of P [apparently covers also the CS post at this time]
is forbidden ever to interview a PC or talk to an auditor about a PC.  Only
what can be statisticized is the concern of the D of P: total TA, process run,
hours in session, etc.  If the auditor is trying to talk to the D of P about
cases, he gets a job endangerment chit.  If a PC doesn't gain in processing,
there are reasons why.  But knowing little tricks won't tell you what they
are.  You can't put beings together again with a cute little trick.

     The auditor's job is to audit standard processes on the PC, with a
standard comm cycle, on a standard gradation program.  The D of P does
standard D of P'ing.  He goes over the session and checks TA for the session.
He picks up the next folder.  The PC's goal is "Not to have too much trouble
in this session."  The total TA was 27 divs for a 2 1/2 hour session.  The PC
is not in trouble -- continue the process.  Next folder: no goals or gains.
PC restive; didn't want to run any processes.  How many hours were wasted
here?  All morning and all afternoon.  The PC was ARC broken through it all.
Auditor to ethics and PC to review.

     Handled in this way, cases keep winning.  If the PC rollercoasters, he
goes to review, then to the examiner, then to ethics.  If the PC can't spot
the SP, ethics just keeps working it over.  There is someone who uses
generalities that keep the PC from spotting him.  If you get the right one,
the PTS's face lights like a Christmas tree.  If you get the wrong one, it
won't, and it is like indicating the wrong BPC.  The condition doesn't
change.  That is the only time ethics lays an egg.  When the PTS situation is
handled, the PC goes back to the HGC, and the auditor takes up from where he
left off.  "Ethical standard matches case level."  Ethics has as a purpose
making people better, not punishing people.

     Suppose the Org Exec Sec sees declining stats in the HGC -- processing is
not as successful as before.  Now is the time to look at all the review
chits.  He finds that auditing cycles are out on several auditors.  He tells
the D of P.  The D of P sends these auditors for special training and gets
their comm cycle in.  Lower classed auditors have lower ethical standards.

     To be an excellent review auditor, you must be a crackerjack assesser, be
able to make the E-meter sit up and sing, know the processes called for on the
Green Form, be able to audit routine auditing on the grades, be able to CS any
folder, know when to send a PC to review and when to review auditors, know
when a process is flat, know what GI's and BI's can be read from a folder,
know what process should be run next, know what is good TA and poor TA, and be
a cryptographer, so you don't get misunderstoods.  You should know which
auditor to assign to which PC.  Your auditors are not all releases, and you
know that there are quirks that make auditor A audit poorly with certain PCs.
If you drop out one of those skills, you are that much less a complete
auditor.

     There is no review for power processing, so power processing is done in
review, with two Class VII's, CS'ing each other.

     An auditor in training is not being trained as a one-man-band.  He gets
tired and quits auditing, if he tries.  But he should be able to do the above
actions, so that he understands what is happening when he audits.

     You only change the standard pattern of the session when the PC gets
non-standard.  The PC goes to review when he is a flat ball-bearing.  The
auditor should know how to do a Green Form, not because he is going to do one
in standard session, but because, as the org grows, more review auditors will
be needed.

     The effects of out-tech are slower to appear in the HGC (maybe six
months) than in the academy (a few days).

     People are always fighting to own this planet.  That's silly!  Why don't
they just go ahead and own it, as we are doing?

