Русская версия

Site search:
ENGLISH DOCS FOR THIS DATE- Crashing Mis-Us the Key to Completed Cycles of Action and Products (WCS-61) - B790617

Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
Remimeo Execs Estos Crse Sups All Staff Word Clearing Series 61
Product Debug Series 3

Crashing Mis-Us: The Key To Completed Cycles Of Action And Products


Incomplete cycles

A cycle of action is the sequence that an action goes through, wherein the action is started, is continued for as long as is required and then is completed as planned.

To produce products one has to also have completed cycles of action. A completed cycle of action normally results in a product.

Where steps A-H of HCO PL Debug Tech (LRH ED 302 INT Rewritten) have been done to no avail, meaning products are not yet rolling out of the area, then the tech herein is to be used as step I of Debug Tech to get the area producing.

Just as a misunderstood word can prevent a person from understanding the remainder of what is heard or written, a misunderstood can prevent a cycle of action from completing.

This is extremely valuable data as it gives us the major reason people don’t complete cycles of action. It is utterly amazing and magical. An area is plagued with not dones and half dones and no products resulting and one would swear that the reasons were infiltration, sabotage, evil intentions, you name it. But in the majority of cases it will be found that the above discovery is operating. The person has a Mis-U on a key word involved in the cycle of action.

The person usually doesn’t realize he has a misunderstood. It is revelatory to him when he finds it so it isn’t necessarily true that he will know. So he himself additionally has a number of wrong Whys and wrong reasons.

There is usually one principal misunderstood that is preventing the cycle of action from completing. This is called the “Crashing Mis-U.”


While finding Crashing Mis-Us is not a substitute for full Word Clearing and while it is also true that the person can be PTS and be engaged in creating problems, it is nevertheless uniformly true that a Crashing Misunderstood lies somewhere in the subject matter of the cycle of action which is not being completed.

The tech given in this HCOB can be used by anyone who has checked out on it and drilled it. The steps given here cover metered and nonmetered Crashing Mis-U finding. Using a Word Clearing meter will make the action faster and more accurate but it is not vital.

The whole action does not take long to do and will save hours of purple-faced desk pounding and frustrated attempts to get people to produce.

It is to be USED by execs, Supervisors, Cramming Officers, Estos, missionaires, etc., etc. — anyone who is responsible for seeing that products are gotten out.

Crashing Mis-U tech is used in debugging products. It comes as step I of HCO PL Debug Tech. If any of the earlier steps are out then you can find all the Crashing Mis-Us you like and still not get one single product.


A cycle of action is a parallel to a cycle of understanding or a cycle of communication. The cycle of action is the physical universe expression of a cycle of communication. The cycle of communication occurs in the physical universe! A misunderstood interrupts not only the cycle of communication or understanding, but also interrupts the motion or action. That is the discovery. A person is trying to get the product of a finished house. He doesn’t understand the word “plumbing.” He may tell you that it is because of the price of materials, that nobody can dig in that kind of ground, that certain types of pipes aren’t available, that he is having trouble with his wife — and his supervisors and bosses will tell you that he is just plain lazy, that he has been bribed not to, that he is a secret drinker maybe, and even less printable Whys. But when you get right down to it and use the Tech you find that he has a Crashing Mis-U on the word “plumbing.” He thinks it is defined as “drilling holes.” Mentally this interrupts his ability to think any thoughts through on the subject. His cycle of understanding is being interrupted by the Crashing Mis-U. This then has a parallel cycle, the cycle of action of trying to get the finished house. Thus for want of understanding of a word we get the actual physical inability to finish a cycle of action on a connected subject. I can assure you that ethics conditions, threat of suit, physical violence, none of these things are going to get anybody a finished house. Only when his Crashing Mis-U “plumbing” is found and properly handled are you going to get a finished house.

This tells you incidentally that the time track of shattered civilizations must have been strewn with these things. It doesn’t only apply to a house, it applies to almost anything man has ever set out to produce. It would even apply to some general who suddenly won’t finish a battle or a war. Amazingly you will discover that the Crashing Mis-U has probably been Man’s single greatest barrier to actually creating and maintaining a civilization. You have to work with the tech yourself to actually appreciate its depth and power.


Where you have a person not getting products, not completing cycles of action despite attempts to debug per A-H of HCO PL DEBUG TECH, you have to get in there and find the Crashing Misunderstood. It will be directly on the subject. There are various approaches to doing this, starting very simply and getting more complex. You would start off using the simplest approach and then, if that didn’t handle, you would go into a more thorough handling, and so forth.


1. It is apparent or it is reported that someone is failing to complete cycles and is not getting out his products.

2. Before even talking to him you inspect his area as regards products per HCO PL Debug Tech:

A. You look for what products have been gotten out in the past.

B. You look for products that are there completed.

C. You look for products that can be attained in the immediate future.

D. You look for value of products as compared to overall cost of production.

E. You look for overt products or cycles where products continuously have to be redone, resulting in no or few products.

This requires a bit of homework.

3. Conditional: If your inspection finds he is getting out actual products and that he is not producing overt products, correct the reports and let him get on with it. Do not go on with the steps in this procedure.

4. Now if the earlier debug steps per HCO PL Debug Tech have been done and it is obvious from your inspection that this person is still not getting out the products he is expected to get out or should be getting out you know that he has a Crashing MisU. You just start hunting and punching around for the Crashing Mis-U on the subject of the products he should be but is not getting out. “What don’t you understand about that subject?” “What Mis-U word is there on this subject?” You keep at it this way until you get the Crashing Mis-U. On the meter you would use reads to steer him to the area and the Mis-U.

Crashing Mis-U finding differs from regular Word Clearing in that it is an investigatory procedure which utilizes all methods of Word Clearing and whatever else it takes to find the Crashing Mis-U. You can use Method 2, Method 3, Method 4, Method 5, Method 6 or Method 9 to help you find the misunderstood. The person you are handling may be sure that the Mis-U is in a certain issue but doesn’t know what the word is. It may require Method 2 or Method 9 to actually dig it out. Often Method 5 is used whereby the Word Clearer asks for the definition of individual words, checking to make sure that he knows the definition as well.

The point is that you are trying to narrow down the area further and further until you finally get the Crashing Mis-U and any method of Word Clearing or investigation that helps you do this is legitimate.

5. You clear this word fully to VGIs (on the meter it would F/N). Don’t assume the dictionary will necessarily give the right definition — a missing or false definition might be the root of his trouble. If no dictionary, textbook or encyclopedia can be found that gives a satisfactory definition for the word you are still not stopped. You can go over all of the related material to the word and work out with him what definition has been omitted or what is the proper definition for it. This is a last resort but it is necessary that anyone doing Crashing Mis-U knows this as Man has not necessarily properly defined everything in his technical sphere or culture. WARNING: The inability to find the definitions is a rare case. Only work out the definition when you have exhausted all possible texts and dictionaries and have cleared all of the words you have encountered in them. Whether you looked it up and found it or couldn’t find it and had to evolve it make sure the definition is useful to him and that it blows his difficulty with it.

6. Assure yourself that this was his Crashing Mis-U and that it is real to him. When he finds it he will quite often be chagrined and then go into VGIs and cognite and may change considerably right in front of your eyes.

7. Send him to the Examiner.

8. Run some Reach and Withdraw in the area where he had difficulty to a good win and tell him to get on with it.

9. Check back later to see that he is now completing cycles of action and getting his products out. — If he is then you have got it. That is the EP.

10. If he still isn’t getting out the product then you haven’t yet found the Crashing Mis-U and you have some more work to do. Go over his area with him and look for things that he has difficulty with. Often it will leap right up at you. Get him to tell you what the difficulty is.

11. Now question him to find the Mis-U on that subject that is behind those difficulties. Often his statement of the difficulty will contain the Mis-U itself. On a meter you would get a read as he says it. Off the meter you would have to take the words that he said and ask him what they meant. For example he might say “The plumbing always seems to be the hardest part.” On a meter “plumbing” would read and you would take it up right away. If you weren’t using a meter you could say “Well what does the word ‘plumbing’ mean?” and he’ll say “Well, it means, uh… ‘drilling holes’“ and there you have it. Now clear the word as in step 4 above, run your Reach and Withdraw and send him back to work.


The end phenomenon (EP) of this action is the person now producing the products he wasn’t able to produce before and completing the cycles of action related to his product.

The end phenomenon is not: the fellow now all VGIs and saying he can get the products, feeling great, etc. That is all very well but is he now getting out the products? And you keep handling him with Crashing Mis-Us and related handling until he is producing the products and then you know you have completed the Crashing Mis-U handling.


There are various factors which must be known by anyone doing Crashing Mis-U finding and used if the above simple steps do not get the desired result of the person now tearing along getting his products.


Since overts and withholds stem from Mis-Us in the first place, you are liable to run into O/Ws when doing Crashing Mis-U finding. If the person has O/Ws in the area this will be manifested in the form of resistance to finding the misunderstood word either overtly or covertly. An example of this would be the person misdefining a word and then when you have him look it up in the dictionary he says that he knew it all along. Or it could be straight noncooperation.

If you are using the Word Clearing meter, the handling for the situation above would be to pull the O/Ws. To do this simply ask “Do you have any overts in the area of ________?” and pull them, each one earlier similar to F/N with all specifics until the question F/Ned on asking. Do the same with withholds and missed withholds. Since you run the risk of missing withholds if you try pulling withholds without a meter, in doing the nonmetered Crashing Mis-U finding the way you would handle the above situation is to ask the person if he has some withhold concerning the area you are trying to handle, and getting him to tell you about it. If you do this then you must get him meter checked to ensure nothing has been missed.

There is another manifestation which can be encountered. A Crashing Mis-U simply cannot be found at all yet it obviously must be there. The person seems to cooperate somewhat but no Crashing Mis-U turns up. This is again an O/W phenomenon. The person is holding on to his withhold so hard it is burying the Crashing Mis-U.

Again you could run the risk of missing a withhold if you simply ask him for his withhold on the subject but we cannot rule out the fact that doing so sometimes works. The Crashing Mis-U simply doesn’t seem to exist yet by all evidence of no products or overt products it must exist so simply asking him if he has a withhold on the subject gives us the gain of finding it straight off immediately and, if we meter check him afterwards to find out if he has any more withholds, it is very likely to pay off. Once he has gotten off the withholds the Crashing Mis-U can pop right up. When you miss a withhold, remember, a fantastic amount of upset can be caused for the Word Clearer or the person himself. So don’t indulge in missing withholds.

Once the O/Ws have been pulled or gotten off by whichever of the above methods, you will now be able to find the Crashing Mis-U and clear it up.

Sometimes in clearing the Mis-U you will hit a chain of overts connected with the subject, and these will have to be cleared up or you may not get your product. An example of this was a cleaner who could not clean. The Crashing Mis-U found was the word “clean” and this went straight into whole track overts which had to be fully handled. When the overts and the Mis-Us were cleared up the person went straight out and started getting real products.


You may find the person has a defense mechanism which would make it impossible to find the person’s Crashing Mis-U as he believes it is OK to have Mis-Us in that area. The defense mechanism consists of false data which acts as a justifier for the Mis-U. An example of this would be “I don’t have to know that as I’m not a professional” or “Well I’m new to the post” and so on. The handling would be simply to ask the person if there was some reason why it would be OK to have Mis-Us in that subject and then strip off the false data and justifications. Then you can recheck for the Crashing Mis-U and you will find it is now available. (See HCOB False Data Stripping)


When he has found a Crashing Mis-U on the subject the Word Clearer’s first action is to himself look up the definition and the derivation of the word so he himself understands it. He then gets it fully cleared up with the person. This is all done right there in the Crashing Mis-U session. If he doesn’t do that he won’t be able to perceive how the person has misunderstood it or misapplied it previously.

Example: A person in charge of the lights in a theater could never get anything lit. A Crashing Mis-U was looked for and the word “scene” was found. However the person glibly read the dictionary definition and said he had it already. The Word Clearer made him look up the derivation wherein it was found that the glib person didn’t understand it at all, for the person, when asked for an example, described an actor and how he would put the light on the actor.

The Word Clearer having looked it up first, before handing the dictionary over, knew that a scene was a stage. It was found that the person’s Crashing Mis-U had so introverted him that he had never perceived that a stage had backdrops, scenery and a floor. The Word Clearer practically had to pry him out of his head to get him to see that a stage had walls and backdrops and that these had to be lighted.

If the Word Clearer had not known the correct definition of “scene” he would never have detected that the person thought it meant “actor” even though the dictionary said it had to do with scenery.

Crashing Mis-U tech would have failed as the person was very convincing as to how he knew it all already yet in the example was giving a totally incorrect demonstration.

Showers of light broke through when the person realized for the first time that he had to light the whole stage and had been in total mystery why people kept yelling at him. This had been going on for a long, long time in the person’s job and was making him a total failure at it.


Always ask for instances of practical usage from the person you have found a Crashing Mis-U on. From these you can detect if he’s got it and if he hasn’t got it he may have to work and work to clear it further.

The end phenomenon of Crashing Mis-U tech is not finding the Crashing Mis-U but getting the person totally straight on it and actually getting out the product.


Crashing Mis-U finding is an integral part of debug tech as covered fully in HCO PL Debug Tech. It comes as step I of the whole procedure. When products are not getting out, cycles are not being completed, there will invariably be Crashing Mis-Us but there may be other factors involved which also have to be resolved. The handling is just to go through the steps of the HCO PL, including Crashing Mis-U finding (step 1) and Product Clearing (step J). You may find more Crashing Mis-Us come up during or after the Product Clearing.

The whole point is that you use the whole debug tech procedure without trying to short cut it. Otherwise you get the ridiculous situation of clearing up the fellow’s Crashing Mis-U on “plumbing” and then find he can’t get out the product of a finished house because there are no pipes and won’t be any for 3 months because the owner can’t afford them. This all has to be resolved.


Since the sole purpose of this debug tech is to get the person or area producing what it should be producing you would not continue past a point where this had been achieved. So for example, if after step C of HCO PL DEBUG TECH had been done (any Mis-Us on issues related to the area of production had been cleared up) the person was turning out great products in the expected quantity and time period, you would not then start looking for Crashing Mis-Us. This would act as harassment, not help. Similarly, don’t use any other step of A-M of the above PL where it does not apply.

One should let people have their successes. Once you have achieved what is desired with this tech, don’t carry on.

The rule is: Don’t continue debugging past the point where the person or area has been successfully debugged and products are now rolling.

And you would know it was debugged because products of the expected quality would be coming out of the area in the expected quantity.


The whole idea is to try the simplest approach first and then if that doesn’t work go deeper.

The end phenomena for all this is a person cheerfully and willingly getting his products and these appearing visible in the physical universe.


This is how it might go: you might find yourself in the position of being responsible for seeing that the house, in the example given earlier on this bulletin, got finished. You notice that the deadline has been exceeded by weeks and still there is no house.

The first thing to do would be the inspection as in step 2 of the procedure above. You would discover that the house has no plumbing; that is what is holding up its completion. Points A to H in HCO PL Debug Tech have been gone over but things still aren’t moving. So you approach the contractor personally and go over this with him. You start hunting and punching around for the Mis-U. Ask him “Is it possible that there is some word you don’t fully understand in the area of building this house?” And he’ll say: “Well, no — it’s just that I don’t have enough men to do the plumbing.” (Now you already know from step E of your prior inspection that he does have adequate personnel.) So you say “Well, what about plumbing? Is there some word connected with plumbing that you don’t get?” He’ll say “No, but I’ve always had trouble with it.” Now you ask him “What does ‘plumbing’ mean?” And when he says, “Everybody knows that plumbing means drilling holes,” you have his Crashing Mis-U. As you clear this up his initial embarrassment will turn into floods of relief and off he will go and get the house finished up in no time.

Now if you were able to use a Word Clearing meter, so much the better. You would put him on the meter and ask him something like: “Now on the subject of building houses is it possible you could have a misunderstood?” The meter will read on this and you use the read to steer him to the area and find the misunderstood word. This is then cleared to a floating needle (F/N) and very good indicators (VGIs).

It might not be as straightforward as above. The case could arise where there was plenty of evidence that the person has a Crashing Mis-U yet, despite arduous search, nothing comes up. You would then ask the person: “Is there something about all this you haven’t told me?” If your TRs are good and you don’t have a challenging or accusative attitude he will come up with it: “I can’t finish the house because the machine that cuts and bends pipes is broken.” With a bit of further questioning you find that he broke the machine and has been withholding this for weeks and didn’t even dare mention that it needed repair for fear of being punished. A simple meter check would ensure that nothing was missed. Then up would pop the misunderstood on “plumbing” which he thought meant drilling holes. No wonder he broke the machine: he was trying to drill holes with it! So now with his withhold off and his MisU cleared up he will feel immensely relieved and will most likely be able to go right off and finish up the house. At the most you might need to product clear him and run some Reach and Withdraw in the area per the issues on Product Clearing in this series.


Here are some actual case histories to show how Crashing Mis-U finding goes and the sort of things one might expect to come across and have to handle in order to debug a cycle or product with this tech.

CASE A: This was a senior executive who was on the verge of being removed from post. The general manager was impatient with the lack of products from that area.

A. The Word Clearer inspected the executive’s department and found that the main area of difficulty seemed to be handling personnel.

B. The Word Clearer put the executive on the meter and asked him if there were any products he should be getting out but wasn’t. No Crashing Mis-U came up on this directly.

C. By two-way communication the Word Clearer confirmed that the main area of difficulty was handling personnel.

D. He took the words that were directly related to the area mentioned –”personnel,” “staff,” etc. — and asked the executive what each one meant. He checked the dictionary to ensure the person had a full understanding of the words. The exec seemed fine on these.

E. There was one word the executive seemed to have some hesitation on so the definition of that word was word cleared Method 9. A few words were cleared up but none of them turned out to be the Crashing Misunderstood.

F. The area of difficulty was further narrowed down by two way comm to “the obtaining and posting of personnel.”

G. Words relating to this area were checked. Some of the definitions were M9ed to make sure the exec really did have them straight — still no Crashing Mis-U was found.

H. The executive originated an area of difficulty to do with handling authority that he felt was interfering with his ability to obtain and post personnel. No MisUs were found in this area however.

I. The Word Clearer asked for overts and withholds in the area (“Is there something you’re not telling about this area?”, “Is there something you’ve done you don’t want known?” etc.) but none were found.

J. He then checked for false data (something that would justify having misunderstoods on that subject) and found that the exec was loaded with false data on the subject of authority. This was handled by two way comm — it did not take much to clean up as the exec was realizing by this time where his trouble was coming from and was only too willing to get it sorted out.

K. The word “authority” was found as the Crashing Misunderstood. This became obvious as soon as the false data came off. This word was fully cleared to a floating needle and very good indicators and the executive volunteered that he felt ready to go back on post and produce.

The Word Clearer ended off and returned the executive to work. He started producing actual products and doing well.

CASE B. : This was a technician in a highly specialized and complex field who was having difficulty with his job and was unable to get approval on some tests that were urgently needed.

A. An inspection of his area revealed the situation to be exactly as described.

B. The Word Clearer put him on the meter, oriented him to the situation and asked him: “Is there any single misunderstood word in the area of these tests?”

C. A long search ensued in which several words were cleared, none of which turned out to be the Crashing Mis-U.

D. The Word Clearer then checked for a withhold and found out that the technician had never understood an important dispatch relating to the cycle and had been withholding the fact. This withhold was cleared up to a floating needle.

E. This was followed by further search for the misunderstood which uncovered an area of upset and losses to do with technical writing.

F. The Word Clearer checked for the misunderstood that must have preceded the losses and the Crashing Mis-U was found — a very basic technical word in the subject.

G. He attempted to clear the word with a dictionary but found no adequate definition.

H. Encyclopedias and textbooks were consulted but none of them had a useful definition.

I. Eventually, by combining textbooks and working out what it should be, a workable definition was arrived at and the subject became clear to the technician who was greatly relieved.

The technician returned to work and started producing. The very next set of tests submitted were approved.

CASE C: This case was an executive who was having trouble getting people in his area to produce. The actions below were done unmetered.

A. The product inspection showed the executive to be unable to get his juniors to produce.

B. He arrived for the Crashing Mis-U finding quite upset and this had to be handled before anything else.

C. The Word Clearer went over his upset with him and sorted it out to a point where he was willing to go ahead with the action.

D. Various words were checked (“What does ‘junior’ mean?” “What is the definition of ‘executive’?”) and so forth. No Crashing Mis-U was found.

E. The area of difficulty was narrowed down further to “getting compliance.”

F. On checking, the Word Clearer found that the exec had a Crashing Mis-U on the word “compliance” which was cleared to very good indicators.

The executive went back to work and found he could now handle his juniors.

CASE D: This person was in charge of briefing missions. He had recently had trouble with this and some missions had fired without full briefing resulting in failures.

A. The Word Clearer asked him, on the meter, if there was anything concerning his post he was having difficulty with.

B. The difficulty was narrowed down by two-way comm until it was established that he felt he couldn’t brief them fully due to lack of time.

C. The Word Clearer checked for a Crashing Mis-U concerning this difficulty. None was found.

D. He then asked if there was something the person was withholding about the subject. Several chains of overts were taken up, each one to a floating needle, until the question itself produced a floating needle on asking.

E. The Word Clearer again asked for a Crashing Mis-U in the area and one of the words in the person’s own post title was found and cleared. This was the Crashing Mis-U.

The person was then able to get out his products.

CASE E: This was an auditor who was being product cleared on her post.

A. The Product Clearer discovered that there was a certain part of her post that this auditor could not handle. It was a certain aspect of handling the preclear

B. He asked her if there was one single Mis-U in the area, and helped her trace it, using the meter reads.

C. The Crashing Mis-U was found and cleared in the dictionary to very good indicators.

D. The auditor was then able to complete the Product Clearing and get back to work, her main difficulty no longer impeding her from getting products.

The above case histories show the variety of situations that can come up and the handlings that would be done. They are by no means all the situations that can arise in doing Crashing Mis-U finding.


Make sure you guide him on the subject of products all the time. You could get right off the track and find yourself clearing up a whole subject that had nothing to do with getting out his product. An example would be trying to clear up the whole of chemistry on a photographer. There is chemistry involved in photography: the film is developed and so forth with chemicals. But the person is a photographer, not a photo laboratory technician, so he does not need to know all of chemistry to get his product.

Another point is that sometimes a person will have a Crashing Mis-U cleared up on himself and immediately suppose that this is the Crashing Mis-U everyone else has. This is not necessarily the case. When one has a Crashing Mis-U on “crackers” it is not necessarily true that everyone else has a Crashing Mis-U on “crackers.” Their Crashing Mis-Us will be different. It is their Mis-Us one is after.


If the action bogs down and can’t be sorted out, or the person becomes upset during or after Crashing Mis-U finding, then the difficulty should be sorted out right away with a Crashing Mis-U Repair List. This list is done on a meter by someone qualified to do so. A botched or bogged Crashing Mis-U finding must be repaired within 24 hours.


You can tell someone has a Crashing Mis-U because when you start to question them about the cycle of action or demand the products they will go robotic on you. They sometimes just stand there gaping at you and won’t even answer your question. They won’t even be able to talk to you. There’s another manifestation you will come up against and that is the person becoming annoyed with you. This indicates either that he was getting out products in the first place, or that he had a withhold in addition to a Crashing Mis-U.

The solution is not to immediately shoot them for not getting out the product. Find their Crashing Mis-U. If they get annoyed then find out which of the above it was and handle. And then the justice factor would consist of disciplining them for going past misunderstoods without clearing them. You have to teach someone to get in his own ethics in this respect so that others do not have to take justice actions on him.


Well, here you have the tech that will enable you to debug failures to produce the products required of him. The person using this tech has to learn it well and become practiced in its application. Then he will get the full benefit of it and total reality on its power.

Let’s get busy and, along with the remainder of debug tech, find the crashing Mis-U when products aren’t coming off the line.

This is indeed miracle tech so let’s go get some miracles!