TR Zero exists so an auditor is not ducking the session but can sit there relaxed, doing his job.
TR One must be done so the pc can hear and understand the auditor (without blowing the pc’s head off either).
TR Two must be done so that the pc gets acknowledged. This can be so corrupted that the auditor doesn’t ack at all but gives the pc meter reads! Instead of acks! Or keeps saying, “I didn’t understand you,” etc.
TR Three basically existed so that the auditor would continue to give the pc commands and not squirrel off or pack up with total silence.
TR Four exists so that the pc’s origins are accepted and not Qed and Aed with or invalidated.
And, surprise, surprise, TRs are for use in the session itself, not just a drill. They are how one runs a session.
An auditor can miss by calling “F/Ns” with high or low TA. And one never feeds meter data to the pc: “That read,” “That didn’t read,” “That blew down,” just must not exist in session patter. “Thank you. That F/Ned,” is as far as an auditor goes. And that’s the end of the cycle and says so.
Erasure can be overlooked by an auditor. In Dianetics this fault is fatal.
Auditor’s Code must be in on all points and particularly invalidation. Pc says, “That’s so and so.” An auditor who says, “I’m sorry. You are wrong,” or any other invalidation is going to wreck a pc’s case. A full knowledge of the Auditor’s Code and actually applying it saves endless troubles. It is an auditing tool, not just a nice idea.
One rehabs a Dianetic chain that, according to a previous worksheet, erased by saying, “According to session records (flow direction) (item) erased.” That’s all. One does not say, “Did the chain giving others a headache erase?” One does not run it again to find out. One does not run a single command “to see if it F/Ns again.” One can say, “Do you agree that the chain giving another a headache erased?” But the more you ask the pc to look for an erased chain the more messed up things will get. It isn’t there. But the auditor by his action can imply it should be there or might be there. A totally wrong approach would be “Look around your bank and see if what isn’t there any more isn’t there.”
Dianetics is not Scientology. A Dianetic chain is not a release. If you try to use Scientology rehab tech on a Dianetic chain, you have had it. It isn’t a “release” (which is a key-out). A Dianetic chain is an erasure. You can’t rehab erasures with “How many times?”, etc.
The test of this is the doing. If you try to use Scn rehab on Dianetic chains, the pc might try to find something. This causes him to key-in other unrun or similar items.
It is a dangerous action at best to try to handle old erased chains. The best you can do is to tell the pc what the old W/S said. If no W/S exists leave the already erased flows alone!
Many times, a Folder Error Summary will give a flubbed chain and then fail to note it was repaired in the next session!
A C/S and auditor would have been pretty irresponsible to just go on auditing past flubbed chains.
The only safe way to handle some previous flubbed chain is to:
(a) Verify in the folder if it was repaired.
(b) If still unrepaired assess the L3RE on it and handle according to the L3RE.
Using the new L3RE (HCOB 11 Apr 71RB) is a Dianetic action.
A Scientology auditor erroneously can try to use it as a two-way comm type of list. If a chain needed one more DEF, then two-way comm on it with no DEF is not going to complete it.
L3RE has its own directions. Questions not marked with directions are used to indicate the fact. This can amount to two-way comm as the pc chews it over. But L3RE where marked is handled by Dianetics actions. Look over the list and its directions for each question and you will see that some are given directions that are NOT 2WC.
Example: “Earlier beginning” reads. You can’t just say, “The incident had an earlier beginning,” and you can’t say, “Tell me about the earlier beginning.” The pc will go up the wall. There’ll be no erasure. You have to use R3M and get him to the earlier beginning and then run it and if it still doesn’t erase, get him to an earlier similar and erase that.
L3RE is a Dianetics list. It is not a Scientology list that is cleared each question to F/N by 2-way comm.
Overruns are demonstrated by a rising TA.
If as you seek to get in Full Flow Dianetics (Ref: HCOB 7 Mar 71R Rev 25 July 78 C/S Series 28RA-1R USE OF QUADRUPLE DIANETICS. HCOB 4 Apr 71-1RA Rev 25 July 78 C/S Series 32RA-1RA USE OF QUAD DIANETICS. HCOB 5 Apr 71 Reissued 13 Jan 75 C/S Series 33R-1 TRIPLE AND QUAD RERUNS (page 380 Tech Vol VIII)) the pc’s TA begins to average higher, overrun is occurring.
Example: While doing FFD pc’s TA has been riding at 2.2 and F/Ns. After a new FFD action it begins to ride at 2.5 and F/Ns. Something is being overrun. Find it and indicate it. And cease to stir the bank up so much! The fault is going over items already run.
In doing a Full Flow Table you often find that the same or similar have been run in the past.
Sometimes you find that a previous attempt to run the item a second or third time has resulted in an ARC break, the reason for which was never detected.
The right action is to note the session date it was first run and just tell the pc, “Feeling surprised was run three times. On (first date it was erased) it was erased. When later run it was an overrun.” This tends to blow the later charge laid in by trying to run the same item again.
It sounds so strange that erased chains can be overrun. But it is true. What happens is that pcs try to cooperate and put something there.
The action of a quarrel between an auditor and a pc is called a firefight.
Restimulating earlier unrun engrams or overrunning chains upsets a pc. The best action, as soon as a pc is disturbed, is to do an L3RE fast and handle what reads the way it should be handled according to the L3RE.
The wrong way is to argue or try to go on.
The pc does not know what it is. He just feels awful. He tries to guess. He will ARC Brk or get sad if the auditor continues.
The correct action is an L3RE.
L1C is not of great use in a Dianetic ARC Brk. L3RE is.
If the pc remains ARC broken, try L3RE again, particularly the whole L3RE.
A Scientology session would be handled with some other list (L1C, L4BRA, etc.). A Dianetic session, including and especially FFD, is handled with L3RE.
You NEVER prepcheck while doing Dianetics. This mushes up the engrams.
ALL these cautions apply as well to an Interiorization-Exteriorization Rundown, when restim occurs one uses an L3RE quickly.
Int-Ext RD is essentially a Dianetic, not a Scientology, action.
A fully genned-in auditor, well crammed, well drilled, well skilled, can be trusted with Dianetics, Dianetic Quads and an Int-Ext RD. Auditors not so handled can get pcs into serious trouble with these things.
A safe course is to use Quads on new, never audited before pcs. Those begun on Quads use then only Quad flows.
Any trouble a C/S is running into comes from the factors of TRs, metering, Code and incomplete or false auditors’ reports.
If when I am C/Sing I ever find an auditor has omitted key session actions or has falsified a report, I order that auditor not to Cramming but a full retrain of the Hubbard New Era Dianetics Course right on up.
A C/S does not see these points. He can get the pc asked what the auditor is doing or did. He can get sessions monitored. This helps him fill this gap in his data.
It’s what isn’t in the auditor’s report that is often the trouble. Auditors omit what they said, omit the firefight, omit session alter-is in their worksheets.
All this sticks the C/S’s neck out for the axe of failure.
So particularly in FFD, Int-Ext and other such actions, a C/S has to act to obtain confidence in the auditor’s TRs, metering, Code use and accurate worksheets.
In FFD, Int-Ext RD and Power, experience has proven that if the auditor is not top grade, if the C/S is not alert, we put a pc at risk.
The USUAL is what keeps the pc safe.
A thorough study of his case, looking for obvious bugs (such as Int-Ext RD done twice, the case a druggie but drug engrams never run, Int done but its 2WC flubbed, to name a few serious ones), sending auditors to Cramming for the slightest flub, insisting on standard TRs USED IN SESSION, good metering, use of the Code, accurate and complete worksheets, use of standard tech, all guarantee the safety and progress of the pc.
FFD (like the Int-Ext RD) requires flawless C/Sing and auditing or the case goes wrong.
When these actions were introduced they showed up any flaws in case studying, TRs, metering, Code and worksheets.
There are two ways to handle. (a) Cancel FFD and Int-Ext as actions. Obviously that is going backwards and is impossible. (b) Begin and continue a serious, effective campaign in the org to (1) Train auditors better, (2) Cram expertly on every flub, (3) Raise quality of TRs and metering.
As you can see, my approach is to improve quality of training, cramming and delivery.
Please help me out in getting this in.
[This HCO B is added to by HCO B 21 April 1971-1R, Addition of 13 January 1975, Revised 22 February 1975, C/S Series 36RB-1R, Quadruple Dianetics-Dangers of]