An auditor who receives a Case Supervisor direction (C/S) of what to audit on a pc is not discharged of his responsibility as an auditor.

The auditor has a series of responsibilities that are part of every C/S he gets to audit.

No auditor is required to accept a specific pc just because the pc is assigned to him.

If an auditor does not believe he can help that particular pc or if he dislikes auditing that particular pc the auditor has a right to refuse to audit that pc. The auditor must state why.

The Case Supervisor, Director of Processing or Director of Review, nor any of their seniors, may not discipline the auditor for refusing to audit a particular pc.

An auditor who refuses to audit his quota of hours or sessions is of course subject to action.

Thus refusing to audit a particular pc, so long as one is not refusing to audit other pcs, is not actionable.

"I do not wish to audit this pc because ______. I am willing to audit other pcs," is the legal auditor statement in the matter.

Some pcs get a bad name with some auditors, some don't appreciate the auditing, some conflict with a particular auditor's own personality. There are such instances. It does not mean certain pcs cannot be helped by others.

It is also true that an auditor who dislikes a pc may not do a good job so the rule also has a practical side to it.

One auditor disliked young men and did a bad job on them. Another disliked old ladies and chopped them up in session. One pc had messed up several Scientologists and couldn't find any­one to audit him at all.

We are not auditing people to make amends to the world.

Thus an auditor has a right to reject or accept the pcs he is given.

When the auditor gets a C/S to do on a case and if he thinks it is not the correct thing to do he has the right to reject the C/S for that pc and require another one he can agree to.

The auditor does not have the right to start doing a C/S and change it during the session except as noted below.

The auditor may not C/S in the auditing chair while auditing the pc. If he has no Case Supervisor at all the auditor still audits from a C/S. He writes the C/S before session and adheres to it in session. To do something else and not follow the C/S is called C/Sing in the chair and is very poor form as it leads to Q and A.

A C/S that is a week or two old or a Repair (Progress) Pgm that is a month or two old is dynamite.

This is called a "Stale Dated Pgm or a Stale Dated C/S" meaning it is too old to be valid.

It should have been done sooner. The pc of last week when the C/S was written may have been well and happily employed but a week later may have headaches and reprimand from the boss.

It is dangerous to accept a Repair (Progress) Pgm if it is old.

The auditor who sees his C/S is old and sees the pc has Bad Indicators is justified in demanding a fresh C/S giving his reasons why.

A program written in January may be completely out of date in June. Who knows what may have happened in between.

Use fresh C/Ses and fresh Pgms.

Stale Dates only occur in poorly run backlogged Divisions anyway. The real remedy is reorganize and hire more and better auditors.

When the C/S he has is proving unworkable during the session, the auditor has a right to end the session and send the folder to the C/S.

Ending the session is totally up to the auditor.

If the auditor just doesn't complete an action that was producing TA and could be com­pleted it is of course a flunk. Such a case is just not running a basic engram the one more time through that would bring the TA down and give a proper end phenomena. This and similar actions would be an auditor error.

The judgement here is whether or not the auditor's action is justified in ending the session.

Even though he may have made an error, the auditor cannot be blamed for the ending off of the session as that is totally up to him. He can be given a flunk for the error.

Auditing a pc on something else whose ruds are out is a Major Auditing Error.

Even if the C/S omits ''Fly a rud" or "Fly ruds" this does not justify the auditor auditing the pc over out ruds.

The auditor can do one of two things: He can Fly all ruds or he can return the folder and request ruds be flown.

The Dianetic Auditor is not excused from auditing over out ruds and in an HGC must be specially cautioned not to do so but return the folder for a new C/S. Better still he should learn to Fly ruds.

If an auditor cannot get a rud to F/N, cannot get any rud to F/N, he is justified in starting a Green Form.

The auditor solution to no F/N on ruds is to do a GF whether the C/S said to or not.

This is an expected action.

It is understood the auditor would use Suppress and False in trying to Fly ruds.

When a pc has not had a session for some time, or when a pc gets sessions days apart, ruds must be flown. Otherwise the pc will get audited over out ruds. This can develop mental mass.

Optimum session scheduling is a series of sessions or a whole program done in a block of sessions close together. This prevents the world from throwing the pc's ruds out between sessions.

Giving sessions far apart barely keeps up with life. The auditing time is absorbed in patching life up.

Rapid gain gets above life's annoyances and keeps the pc there.

When an item the auditor has been told to run doesn't read on the meter, even when the auditor puts in Suppress and Invalidate on it, the auditor must not do anything with the item no matter what the C/S said.

It is expected he will see if it reads and use Suppress and Invalidate on it. And if it still doesn't read he will be expected not to run it.

When an auditor whose C/S told him to list "Who or what ______" or any list question finds that the list question does not read, the auditor must not list it.

When doing a list ordered by the C/S it is assumed that the auditor will test it for read before listing and that he will not list an unreading question. (A read is an actual fall, not a tick or a stop.)

When an auditor has trouble doing a list and getting an item it is expected he will use a Prepared List like L4B to locate the trouble and handle it.

As it is very hard on a pc to mess up a list it is expected the auditor will handle the situa­tion then and there with no further C/S directions.

When the auditor sees the TA is high at session start yet the C/S says to "Fly a rud" or run a chain, the auditor must not try to fly a rud and he must not start on a chain.

Trying to bring a TA down with ARC Brks or ruds is very hard on a pc as ARC Breaks aren't the reason TAs go up.

Seeing a high TA at start the Dianetic auditor or SCN auditor up to Class II does not start the session but sends the folder back to the C/S and for a higher class auditor to do.

Seeing a high TA at start the Scientology auditor (Class III or above) (a) checks for exte­riorization in a recent session and if so the session is ended and the C/S is asked for an "Interiorization Rundown"; (b) if the pc has had an Interiorization Rundown the auditor asks the C/S for permission to do a "C/S Series 53 or a Hi-Lo TA assessment or whatever the C/S indi­cates. The Int RD may have been (usually is) overrun and needs rehab or correction and it is usual to check it — it is included in a "C/S 53 and a Hi-Lo TA.

These actions are expected of the auditor even when not stated in the C/S.

When a case is running badly session to session the last thing you do is go on hoping, either in auditing or C/Sing.

"Let's try _____", ''Then this", "Then this", is not going to solve the case.

You get data. You can get data by a White Form (Pc Assessment Form). You can get data from a GF fully assessed (Method 5). You can get data by 2-way comm on various sub­jects. You can have the D of P interview and get answers. You can even ask his mother.

You look for case errors. You study the folder back to where the pc ran well and then come forward and you'll find the error every time.

Do not just go on session after failed session hoping. That's pure idiocy.

You get data! from prepared lists, from life, from the pc, from the folder.

Find the bug!

Ah, good Lord, he is a Pinkerton Agent sworn to secrecy! He does yoga exercises after every session. He was tried for murder when he was 16 and nobody has run the engram of it.

Various auditors ran the same engram chain four times.

An auditor ran Int RD twice.

After Power she had her baby and nobody ran the delivery.

He doesn't like to talk but is a "Grade Zero"!

A dozen dozen reasons can exist.

An auditor does not let a C/S C/S hopefully. He refuses the C/Ses until a Folder Error Summary is done and the bug found.

By carelessness the same rundowns can be called for twice and done twice or even more.

A Folder Summary inside the front cover must exist and must be kept up.

Over it there must be a program on which the case is being audited. But just because it's covered, never neglect entering a session and what was run on the Folder Summary (FS).

If Hold it Still is ordered, see if it was run before.

Don't let major Rundowns be done twice.

Dianetic Items must never be run twice. Dianetic lists must not be scattered through a folder. Bring them together and keep them together and being brought forward.

Don't copy Dianetic lists or worksheets from notes or items from lists.

Keep all admin neat and in the original form.

Copying makes errors possible.

When the ruds go out during the session the auditor recognizes the following:

Pc Critical = W/H from auditor

Pc Antagonistic = BPC in session

No TA = Problem

Tired = Failed Purpose or no sleep

Sad = ARC Break

Soaring TA = Overrun or Protest

Dope Off = By-passed F/N or not enough sleep

No Interest = Out Ruds or no interest in the first place.

An auditor who isn't sure what it is but runs into trouble with the pc (except on lists which he handles at once always) is smart to end off the session quickly, write down the full observation and get it to the C/S.

The auditor who is an old hand and knows what he is looking at as per above scale (and the C/S the C/S would give) handles it promptly.

The auditor has no business trying to do the C/S given when it collides with and isn't designed to handle any of the above.

If the previous session disclosed such an error and this session C/S was designed to handle and doesn't, the auditor should end off and the next C/S should be "2-way comm for data".

When the auditor or the Examiner collides with a pc who is asserting his case has not been handled, there should not be a new set of actions based on little data but the auditor should end off and the C/S should order a "way comm on what hasn't been handled".

The auditor should not at once take this up as part of any other C/S.

In other words an auditor doesn't change the C/S to a 2-way comm on something not called for by C/S.

An auditor should never begin a major action on a case that is not "set up" for it.

As this can occur during a session it is vital to understand the rule and follow it. Otherwise a case can be bogged right down and will be hard to salvage as now a new action to repair has been added to an unrepaired action. Now, if the auditor starts a major action on a case not "set up" we get two things to repair where we only had one as the major action won't work either.

Repair = patching up past auditing or recent life errors. This is done by prepared lists or completing the chain or correcting lists or even 2-way comm or prepchecks on auditors, sessions, etc.

Rudiments = setting the case up for the session action. This includes ARC Brks, PTPs, W/Hs, GF or O/R listing or any prepared list (such as L1C, etc.).

Set up = getting an F/N showing and VGIs before starting any major action. It means just that — an F/N and VGIs before starting any major action. Such may require a repair action and rudiments as well.

Major Action = any — but any — action designed to change a case or general considerations or handle continual illness or improve ability. This means a Process or even a series of processes like 3 flows. It doesn't mean a grade. It is any process the case hasn't had.

Grade = a series of processes culminating in an exact ability attained, examined and attested to by the pc.

Program = any series of actions designed by a C/S to bring about definite results in a pc. A program usually includes several sessions.

The vast bulk of auditing errors come about because C/Ses and auditors seek to use a Major Action to repair a case.

It is a responsibility of an auditor to reject a C/S which seeks to use one or more major actions to repair a case that isn't running well.

The auditor must understand this completely. He can be made to accept a wrong C/S for the pc and even more importantly can in his own session make the error and mess up the case.

Example: Pc has not been running well (no real TA or had a grumpy Exam report). Audi­tor sees C/S has ordered a major action, not a repair by prepared lists, ruds, etc. The auditor must reject the C/S as he will be made to fail in session by it.

Example: Auditor gets a C/S, "(1) Fly a rud; (2) Assess LX3; (3) Run 3-way recall, 3-way secondaries, 3-way engrams on all / / X items". The auditor can't get a rud to fly. Does the LX3. In other words he flunks by failing to set up the case. It could also go this way. Auditor can't get a rud to fly, does a GF, gets no F/N. He must not begin a major action but must end off right there.

It is fatal to begin any new process on the case designed to change the case if the case is not F/N VGIs.

The pc who starts processing for the first time and is surely not F/N VGIs must be set up by repair actions! Simple rudiments, life ruds, O/R list on life, even assessing prepared lists on life, these are repair actions. The pc will sooner or later begin to fly. Now at session start you put in a rud, get F/N VGIs and can start major actions.

So the auditor has a responsibility not to be led up a garden path by a C/S which orders a major action on a pc who isn't repaired or by not being able in session to get an F/N VGIs by repair.

The only exceptions are a touch assist or life ruds or the Dianetic assist all on a temporarily sick pc. But that's repair isn't it?

When an auditor receives a C/S and sees that it violates the pc's program he should reject it.

The pc, let us say, is supposed to finish his Dianetic Triples but is suddenly being given a Group Engram Intensive. That violates the program and also the grade.

If the pc is running badly, a repair should be ordered. If not, the program should be com­pleted.

Example: An effort is being made to get the pc to go backtrack. This is a program con­taining several major actions which probably consists of several sessions. Before this program is complete and before the pc has gone backtrack, the C/S orders "(1) Fly a rud, (2) 3 S & Ds". The auditor should recognize in 3 S & Ds a major action being run into the middle of a program and reject it. The correct action is of course the next backtrack process.

A pc who is on a grade and hasn't attained it yet must not be given major actions not part of that grade.

Example: Pc is on Grade I. C/S orders a list having to do with drinking. It is not a process on that grade. It could be done after Grade I is attained and before Grade II is begun. The C/S is incorrect and should not be accepted.

Now and then before the full major action is complete or before all the grade processes are run, the pc will attain the ability of the grade or the end phenomena of the action.

This is particularly true of valence shifters or Interiorization Rundowns and can happen in grades.

The auditor should recognize it and, with the F/N VGIs always present at such moments, end off.

I know of one case who had a huge cog about Interiorization on Flow 1 Engrams and was pushed by both C/S and auditor to do Flows 2 and 3 who bogged so badly that it took a long while — weeks — to straighten the case out.

The ability itself gets invalidated by pushing on.

On the other hand this should never be taken as an excuse. "I think he cogged to himself so we ended off. " It must be a real "What do you know!" sort of out-loud cog with a big F/N and VVGIs and directly on the subject to end off a major action or a program or a grade before its actions are all audited.

An auditor who gets a C/S or an order to repair a case that is running well should reject doing the action.

I have seen a case ordered to repair who had Ext Full Perception Doing Great. The repair bogged the case. The case then got running well again but a second C/S ordered a new repair which of course bogged it. Then major actions were done. The case was again repaired and rehabbed and became OK. Three times the auditor should have said no.

The vilest trick that can be played on a pc is for an auditor to falsify an auditing report.

It may be thought to be "good Public Relations" (good PR) for the auditor with the C/S.

Actually it buries an error and puts the pc at risk.

Integrity is a hallmark of Dianetics and Scientology.

Just because psychiatrists were dishonest is no reason for auditors to be.

The results are there to be gotten.

False reports like false attests recoil and badly on both the auditor and pc.

When an auditor finds himself being nattery or critical of his pcs he should get his withholds on pcs pulled and overts on them off.

An auditor who goes sad is auditing pcs over his own ARC Break.

An auditor worried about his pc is working over a Problem.

Getting one's ruds in on pcs or C/Ses or the org can bring new zest to life.

In the chair no auditor has a case.

If breath shows on a mirror held to his face he can audit.

Faint afterwards if you must but see that the pc gets to the Examiner with his F/N.

Then get yourself handled.

An auditor has a right to know what he did wrong in the session that went wrong.

Most often a sour session occurs only when the rules and data in this HCO B have been violated.

But an auditor's TRs can go out or his listing and nulling is in error.

After a session that went wrong somebody else (not the auditor) should ask the pc what the auditor did. This sometimes spots a false auditing report. But it also sometimes is a false report by the pc.

In any event, the auditor has a right to know. Then he can either correct his auditing or his know-how or he can advise the C/S the pc's report is untrue and better repair can be done on the pc.

Savage action against an auditor is almost never called for. He was trying to help. Some people are hard to help.

Not only does an auditor have the right to be told what was wrong but he must be given the exact HCO B, date and title, that he violated.

Never take a verbal or written correction that is not in an HCO B or tape.

Don't be party to a hidden data line that doesn't exist.

"You ruined the pc!" is not a valid statement. ''You violated HCO B page ____" is the charge.

No auditor may be disciplined for asking, ''May I please have the tape or HCO B that was violated so I can read it or go to Cramming. "

If it isn't on a tape, a book or an HCOB it is not true and no auditor has to accept any criticism that is not based on the actual source data.

"If it isn't written it isn't true'' is the best defense and the best way to improve your tech.

These are the rights of the auditor with relation to a C/S. They are all technical rights based on sound principles.

An auditor should know them and use them.

If an auditor stands on these rights and gets beaten down he should put all the facts before his nearest OTL or SO ship as something would be very wrong somewhere.

Auditing is a happy business — when it is done right.

[OTL means Operation-Transport Liaison which was a Sea Organization office that managed orgs or an area and was a forerunner of the Flag Operations Liaison Office (FOLO).]