The original issue of "Clay Table Clearing" was called "Clay Table IQ Processing".

The materials were not broadly released pending the outcome of pilot projects I conducted.

I find now that the HCO Bulletin of Aug 17, AD14 which covered Clay Table IQ Processing was the better process. HCO Bulletin of Aug 18, AD14, Clay Table Clearing, was not as good as the first process I released as auditors had more trouble with it.

In using Clay Table Clearing as per the HCO Bulletin of Aug 18, AD14, auditors asking for the answer in Step II (what about the subject the pc hadn't grasped) always got a question as the pc's answer. Example of the error: Auditor: "What do you want to improve?" Pc: "My memory. " Auditor: (Step Two) "What about memory haven't you grasped?" Pc: "What it is. " Auditor: "Reduce that to a single term. " Pc: "Remembering. " End of Example of error.

You see that the auditor's question was answered by a pc's question about the subject. (What it is.)

Therefore, the pc answered his own question for the next step, Step III. (Remembering.)

You now have a solution to get the pc to represent in clay. It has restimulated the real earlier missed word. The pc's solution to the pc's question won't lead anywhere in being processed.

So this isn't correct to get a pc question as the answer to II or a pc's solution to the pc's question as the answer to III. This takes clearing nowhere. And also, restimulating an earlier word in the pc's bank that is misunderstood, puts by-passed charge into the session, leading to a possible ARC Break.

We learn then that

1. We mustn't ask the pc a question about what he wants to improve that will cause the pc to answer with his own question, and

2. We must not take a new solution to the pc's difficulty to represent in Clay.

A solution is later in time than the upset about the subject. The cause of the upset is always an earlier misunderstood term. The term is therefore restimulated in trying to represent the solution. The term then becomes by-passed charge.

Therefore we also learn this phenomenon:

If you get the wrong thing to represent in clay it will restimulate the right thing that should have been represented and the wrong thing will not itself blow if represented in clay as it is not early enough.

Therefore, done wrong, Clay Table Clearing will not seem to work and will also ARC Break the pc.

Clay Table Clearing is then relegated to Level IV and only Clay Table Healing (where the chance of wrong words is remote) is placed at Level III. At Level IV the auditor has been trained to do ARC Break Assessments. Obviously, Clay Table work needs its own ARC Break Assessment list.

The Important things are

1. Don't let the pc answer "what about it he wants to improve" with a question, and

2. Don't let the pc give you a new solution to his difficulty as the thing to represent in Clay.

In Clay Table IQ Processing as per HCO Bulletin of Aug 17, AD14, this didn't arise because the auditor's question was asking only for a term.

These are other things I've learned about this process from watching other auditors use it and with the above these are incorporated into the following brief rundown of Revised Clay Table Clearing.

STEP I: Find an area where the pc is trying to get smarter or wants to Improve, or wants to become more able. This we will call the Subject. It must not be a physical body part as that is Clay Table Healing. If the pc gives a physical body part or Health, change to Clay Table Healing.

STEP II: The caution here is don't let the pc toss this off carelessly. It must be some subject in which the pc really wants to improve or some subject in which the pc really is trying to get smarter. If pc is sarcastic do an ARC Break Assessment from an appropriate list. Establish that the pc sincerely wants to improve in the subject or get smarter about it or become more able in it. Write the Subject in the Auditor's Report.

STEP III: Trace back (no meter, make no lists) a word or term the pc has had difficulty with in the Subject. This is called the Term. The usual question would be "What word or term have you had difficulty with in (subject name)?"

STEP IV: Satisfy yourself that this is the word or term the pc has had difficulty with. But do not make lists or go on and on getting the pc to change terms for hours as Step III and Step IV require only a few minutes or even seconds usually. Write the term in the Auditor's Report.

STEP V: Tell the pc "Represent that term in clay. " Pc may represent it and any related masses in Clay and may work on it as long as he or she likes.

STEP VI: Make sure pc labels with paper and pen or in some similar way each thing the pc represents. Make sure you do not touch or take away the pc's clay. Be honest if you don't understand what the pc is doing and get the pc to make you understand it, using labels and clay (not long verbal dissertations not related to the clay and labels). Make sure you don't evaluate for the pc or tell the pc what his models or difficulties are all about. Make sure the pc is satisfied he has represented the Term in Clay. Don't ARC Break the pc by refusing the obvious or by letting the pc quit while the pc is still dissatisfied he has done it — a nice balance to maintain. Make sure the pc is satisfied he has represented the term in Clay.

STEP VII: Have the pc do the Term in Clay again. This is repetitive representation in Clay. Do not do or continue to do this step after the pc has had a big cognition about the Term which blows it (or blows the whole subject). In this step the Term can be done over and over many times. The test is whether or not the pc has fully understood it. (Note: With terms on which the pc has no definition at all, the pc can look them up in the dictionary or the auditor can look them up for him. But the term must still be done in Clay as there was some reason the pc missed it.)

STEP VIII: When the Term is flat, go back to the Subject and ask the pc how he feels about it. If there is the least hesitation or any evidence of discomfort or doubt about the Subject, continue to use the same Subject and go on with STEP III above, locating a new Term for the same Subject. Be very careful however that the pc's attitude stems from the Subject itself and not an ARC Break. Go on down the Steps with this new Term for the same Subject.

STEP IX: When you have handled enough Terms to produce a very obvious change and when the Subject is obviously flat by reason of cognitions or abilities regained, go to Step I for a new Subject and carry it through the steps as above.

CAUTION: Pcs with PTPs, Overts, Missed Withholds and ARC Breaks will not progress under Routine auditing. These must be handled. See The Book of Case Remedies and other sources for data on how to handle PTPs, Overts, Missed Withholds and ARC Breaks.

Note the new expanded definition for the old word Routine and the new word Remedy. This special use of the word Routine accidentally fits the way it was formerly used. But it was used more loosely then to mean any combination of processes in a package whereas it now means "that which advances the usual case that is in session and has no PTPs, Overts or ARC Breaks in restimulation. "

A Routine such as Clay Table Clearing is for routine use. It is for normal case advance. Pcs with PTPs, Overts, Missed Withholds, Hidden Standards, etc, as well as ARC Breaks do not advance on a Routine. These require a Remedy.

A Remedy is "something you do to get the pc into condition for Routine auditing".

This concept is new and is very much needed. It constitutes a bit of a breakthrough in itself.

When you attempt Routine auditing such as Clay Table Clearing on a pc who has longstanding PTPs or has just got one for the session, or has overts or withholds or an ARC Break, you will get no advance from routine auditing. You have to Remedy the case by rudiments or special processes. Then when the case is ready to run routinely, you can do or resume Clay Table Clearing.

There is no process that handles PTPs and rapidly advances the whole case also. There is no process that handles an immediate ARC Break and also advances the general condition of the case. Overt and withhold processes are excellent remedies but slow case advancers.

The mark of the skilled auditor is the ability to remedy a case and then get on with routine auditing. The auditor who only audits remedies will never really advance a case permanently and an auditor who can handle only routines and cannot remedy a case are alike in that they won't make clears.

It is upon the dual ability of the auditor that clearing depends — the ability to spot the non-advancing case, spend a few sessions remedying it and then get on with routine auditing — the ability to get those fresh PTPs and overts in the first few minutes of the session and get on with the routine — these are two different auditing actions. The auditor who can observe which of these actions (the Remedy or the Routine) needs to be done and who can judge when they should be done and who knows the Remedies and who also knows the Routines can clear pcs.

The answer to clears now depends on the skill and training of the auditor far more than on the state of the pc's case.

After the pilot run on getting Clay Table Clearing ironed out in use in the auditor's hands, and the blunders that will be made before auditors become familiar with the HCO Bulletins and these processes, I think the main errors will be found to be Gross Auditing Errors such as failing to get the pc to answer the auditing question and such like.

Clay Table Clearing sessions are started with a meter. The meter is laid aside when the routine is actually begun. Checks for "Tone Arm Action" can be made mainly by observing the pc's good indicators. If they're in, the pc is getting TA. If they're not observable, the pc isn't getting TA. However, as Clay Table Clearing is at Level IV, no pc who has not gotten TA action on lower level processes should be run on Clay Table Clearing until his case is remedied. (Note: It has been observed in one pc who did not get TA action that correcting just one word the pc had misdefined in his bank brought about good indicators, but this was done merely by A Case Remedy using Two-Way Comm, not by Clay Table Clearing. The pc thereafter got good TA — but would have done so after the Remedy on any process. Clay Table work is not for cases who get no TA in general. See The Book of Case Remedies. Do not confuse getting one word defined by two-way comm with Clay Table Clearing. They aren't the same thing.)

The Meter is used at the beginning and end of session to handle rudiments and give data on state of needle and TA and is used during session only when pc has an ARC Break and then only to locate and indicate the charge on ARC Break Lists. When a remedy such as mid ruds is undertaken during the session the meter is also used.

Model Session as amended is used as the session form of Clay Table Clearing.

In using Model Session be careful not to restimulate overts and PTPs the pc obviously does not have in restimulation at session start.

If the pc is eager and talking about the Clay Table, give the usual Start of Session procedure, note down the TA and state of needle, give the Start of Session and swing at once into the body of the session.

When a session has been successful do an equally brief End of Session procedure and end it.

Only if the pc seems preoccupied at the start of session or the TA is found to be much higher than at the end of the last session or something seems wrong should you go into a full Model Session beginning rudiments.

And only if the session was rough should you do the end of session rudiments.

These uses of Model Session are for Levels III, IV and VI.