Русская версия

Site search:
ENGLISH DOCS FOR THIS DATE- Case Folder Analysis, Dianetics - B690809
- Case Folder Analysis, New Era Dianetics - B690809RA78
- LX1 (Conditions) - B690809
- LX1 (Conditions) - B690809R78

RUSSIAN DOCS FOR THIS DATE- LX 1 (Состояния) - Б690809
- Анализ Папок Кейсов ДНЭ (Серия ДНЭ) - Б690809RA78
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
Remimeo Class VIII Class VIII Checksheet Case Supervisors (Revisions in this type style)
(Ellipses indicate deletions)


There are only nine things that can go wrong in a New Era Dianetics session.

These are the only reasons chains do not erase and the session does not complete with very good indicators.

The first eight come under the head of auditing skill or knowledge.

They are listed in order of frequency:

1. Auditor comm lag (lack of speed in giving commands).

2. Flubbed commands in which the commands are used incorrectly.

3. TRs out, either being inaudible or overwhelming or TR 4 not handled.

4. Auditor additives.

5. Failure to call for an earlier beginning of the incident when the pc can find no earlier incident — results in grinding and high TA.

6. Failure to call for an earlier incident when there is one.

7. Demanding pc goes earlier when the last incident was basic, making pc jump into another chain.

8. Misassessment. (Selecting a narrative item and running it by regular R3RA instead of by Narrative R3RA. Or choosing a multiple item or an after the fact item to run. Or taking an item that doesn’t read or in which the pc has no interest.)

9. Pc has out rudiments.


Note that the first four are beyond the view of the Case Supervisor.

The largest number of session failures come under these first four. Therefore it is routine for the Case Supervisor to have the pc asked what the auditor did. It is usually surprising. It will be one of the first four listed above. It requires a retrain.

The next four are also auditor flubs but are detectable if the Case Supervisor reads the worksheets of the session.

Therefore the Case Supervisor must know 5, 6, 7 and 8 above very well indeed and be able to look for them. In all of these the TA goes high or very low and the session ends up as a bust.

You can easily see 5. The pc is still on the same chain but begins to grind DEF DEF DEF DEF DEF, the TA goes way up or down below 2 and the auditor command „H. “ „Is there an earlier beginning to this incident?“ is spectacularly absent. So the C/S tells the next auditor to get the earlier beginning of the same incident and run the incident from its earlier beginning, then go earlier as necessary to complete the chain. It will eventually go to EP with an F/N and the postulate coming off and VGIs obtained.

6 is very easy for the C/S to spot. The pc has been given DEF DEF DEF DEF DEF, etc. and has been asked for an earlier beginning to the same incident but hasn’t been asked for an earlier incident. So the C/S tells the next auditor to get an earlier incident.

7 is also easy for a C/S to detect from the worksheet of that session. Before the pc jumped to another chain by being forced to go earlier below basic, the TA was dropping and the incident was erasing, but the auditor failed to ask, after each run through the incident, „Has it erased?“ The pc may have even given up a postulate, but the auditor missed the EP and pushed the pc earlier. Also the pc protested or had trouble when the auditor tried to go „earlier than basic“ and also may mention another somatic.

In 8, misassessment, you can tell just by looking at the item that it is multiple such as „A burning pain in my hair and a feeling of tension on my hand“; that it is narrative „getting my feet wet“ (where’s the feeling in that???); or after the fact of the engram „dizziness after a car wreck. “ A real classic would be „A stomach ache when I was thrown from a horse. “ The C/S hardly has to look at the end of the session to know it will be no erasure, high or low TA and bad indicators at the Examiner.

As auditors who do these last four things have their metering or basic definitions madly out (such as „I never did understand what a somatic was“) and as in the first four the approach to the pc, TRs and additives need ironing out, the C/S sends the auditor for retrain.

From the C/S point of view (and fact) the technology applied gets uniform good results. Thus the C/S never gets reasonable.

The auditor will on retrain settle down. 100% sessions will occur regularly when he really can audit.


The commonest C/S for a pc after a Dianetic session that ends with a high TA or below 2 TA and/or bad indicators at Examiner is „L3RF Method 5 and Handle. “ If the L3RF, properly assessed and handled doesn’t resolve it, „To a Scientology auditor for a GF to F/N. Assess auditors, auditing, Dianetics, Scientology, sessions, reviews, gains (or whatever you care to add), Prepcheck. “


In number 9, we get several manifestations. The pc has a good looking session yet complains to the Examiner. That is to say VGIs F/N cog at session end, but sour grapes ten minutes later at the Examiner’s.

A pc who gets sad at session end and is or has been sad a long time and is sad and moping or despondent is, of course, suffering from an ARC Brk and is being audited over one and probably has had it for long duration. The proper C/S action is „To a Scientology auditor for a GF to F/N. Check ARC Brk Long Duration (LD). “ This last is done with itsa earlier itsa and ARCU CDEINR by the auditor.

The pc who is being audited over a PTP won’t be making any gains. They quickly evaporate. The C/S orders „To a Scientology auditor for a GF to F/N. Check problems and being audited over problems. “

When a pc is a bit nasty to the auditor or Examiner, he is of course being audited over withholds. The C/S is „To a Scientology auditor for a GF to F/N. Then check and pull all withholds and check if the pc has been audited over withholds. “


When a pc is ill or has a history of illness you get him/her medical attention and apply HCOB 24 July 69R, SERIOUSLY ILL PCs.

When a pc gets ill after auditing but the sessions look alright, you can be pretty sure that the pc is being audited over out ruds so a C/S orders „To a Scientology auditor for a GF to F/N. Assess GF 40 and handle any out ruds found in that assessment first. “


There may be some special versions of out ruds but they are all one variety or another of out rud.

The pc himself can generate out ruds by lying to his New Era Dianetics auditor. It still shows up as out ruds, withholds.

One pc (out of a hundred) said uniformly that „it was getting more solid“ to escape each incident, got himself into a jump chain situation continually and became very ill indeed. This also operated as a withhold in session. It was not detectable in the worksheets except that the pc became ill. It came out while flying ruds in a review session.

But generally pcs don’t act up in sessions if the auditing is straightforward and many get better even when audited over all kinds of out ruds.

When a C/S begins to be mystified concerning some pc, why betterment isn’t occurring — why the pc’s manifestations and remarks never change — or the pc becomes ill, then only three things need to be done. And all three should be ordered by the C/S.

1. Medical exam and any treatment.

2. Review to straighten up all out ruds.

3. New Era Dianetics auditing, using both Narrative R3RA Quad and full Preassessment procedure on troubled areas.


There is one other flub a bit maddening to a C/S.

When the C/S says „Assess existing lists or add“ and the auditor says no items, it is quite often an auditor flub, a special kind of 8 above — misassessment.

One green auditor took 3 pcs in a row and could find no item, concluding that each of the 3 pcs were done with Dianetics! It turned out that the auditor’s TR 1 was so bad the pcs couldn’t hear her!

Another auditor didn’t have his meter plugged in and another one was found never to have done any meter drills.

Aside from getting the pc asked what the auditor did, which also should be done when it’s obvious there should have been an item and wasn’t, the C/S should order „Do a new Original Assessment Form“ when the old list F/Ns or draws a blank even when properly assessed.

The pc can also be sent to the Examiner to be asked if there is anything not handled. The pc may give an area of interest. If there is one, but it hasn’t read, the C/S should send the pc to a Scientology auditor for GF to F/N and probably a GF 40RD Expanded and handle. Then one can get the area asked about in Review and Suppress and Protest put in on it and back to Dianetics.


Some pcs go exterior and the auditor may have missed it and continued auditing over it. Auditing past exterior can drive the TA high (or low) and the pc may become very upset and/or ill.

C/S for an L3RF to be done to determine if the pc has gone exterior. If so… and the pc has never had an Int RD the C/S would order an Interiorization Rundown. The Int Rundown stabilizes the exteriorization and makes it possible to audit the pc further.

Additionally, the pc could have had an Int RD that was messed up. This would … be determined by an L3RF and if found the C/S would be for an Int RD Correction List … (If Int had been done and previously corrected, the C/S would order an End of Endless Int Repair RD (HCOB 24 Sep 78) after first having the pc’s folders FESed to ensure there were no unhandled Int errors present.) The Int RD and its correction must be turned over to a trained Scientology auditor.

When any Int actions, the Int RD, Int RD Correction or the End of Endless Int Repair RD, as needed, has been successfully completed, put the pc back on Dianetics.


I have personally C/Sed a vast number of Dianetic sessions and the above is all I had to do or know to keep them all going well.

If you look for tricky processes in Dianetics to „solve“ some case, you will make a bad error as a C/S. They all come under the above data.

Good luck.