Сообщение auditor » 22 сен 2016, 11:16

Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
All Auditors
All Supervisors
All Interneships
All HCOB Volume Buyers


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 justi-fied.
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. How-ever, 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.


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 there-fore 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 hid-den. This completes 7 months of search for tech outnesses.
Here is the list.


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 condi-tion is not too difficult to handle and to find that all the tech of handling it was in disuse ex-plained 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.
Fortunately, the Technical Bulletin Volumes were not quite off the press and this one was caught with HCOB 27 July 1976 which will be found on page 428 of Volume VIII.
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 ac-tual 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 col-lect 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.


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 peo-ple 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.


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 com-mands 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 audi-tor 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 com-petitive course to an HSDC. In following this further it was found that even the most funda-mental 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 audit-ing some time in the future.
At the same time, a new course, which makes a senior Dianetic auditor, is being put to-gether 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.


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 ex-amination 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, clari-fications 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 Acad-emies 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.


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 situa-tion 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 Check-ing” 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 Confes-sionals.” 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 de-veloped on Sec Checking in the autumn of ‘72.
There should be no further confusion in this matter. “Sec Checking,” “Integrity Pro-cessing” and “Confessionals” are all the exact same procedure and any materials on these sub-jects 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.”


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 Confes-sionals, 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 con-siderable 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.

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 appli-cable 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 mis-understoods 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.


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 set-ting 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 al-ways 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 possi-bly 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 cur-rent 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.


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 read-ing 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.


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 find-ing 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.


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.


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 111 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 au-dited 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 actual-ly 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.


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.


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 hat-ted 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. Actu-ally such checkouts are done by the students themselves, on each other where starrates are re-quired 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 theo-ry 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 re-vised 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 Vol-ume 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.


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 organiza-tions 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?


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 rec-ord 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.


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 check-sheets within checksheets, thus making interneships interminable.
As a result of this, a special mission was put on the job of reforming interneship check-sheets.
These checksheets have now been issued and exist for every level as Board Policy Let-ters issued from 10 Nov 76 up through BPL 25 Nov 76 Issue 1. They have been greatly simpli-fied 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 is-sued 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 can-celled. 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 certif-icate 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.


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 any-one seeking to force such a pc upon an auditor against policy, is actionable by a Committee of Evidence.


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.


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 Vol-umes.
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.


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.


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 Sec-tion 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.


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” se-ries 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 com-piled 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 Ad-vanced 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.

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 direc-tion, 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?

Professional auditing in any place on the planet Auditor class X, skype: timecops
Сообщений: 698
Зарегистрирован: 28 дек 2015, 12:01

Вернуться в L Ron Hubbard original HCO BULLETINS, POLISIES

Кто сейчас на форуме

Сейчас этот форум просматривают: Google [Bot] и гости: 11