Different types of auditing call for different handlings of End Phenomena.
End Phenomena will also vary depending on what you’re running.
The definition of End Phenomena is “those indicators in the pc and meter which show that a chain or process is ended”. Misapplication of this definition can result in underrun and overrun processes or actions and the pc snarled up with BPC.
In Power Processing the auditor waits for a specific EP and does not indicate an F/N until he has gotten the specific EP for the process. To miss on this in Power is disastrous, thus Power auditors are drilled and drilled on the handling of Power EPs.
In Dianetics, the EP of a chain is erasure, accompanied by an F/N, cognition and good indicators. You wouldn’t necessarily expect rave indicators on a pc in the middle of an assist, under emotional or physical stress until the full assist was completed though. What you would expect is the chain blown with an F/N. Those two things themselves are good indicators. The cognition could simply be “the chain blew”.
In Scientology, End Phenomena vary with what you’re auditing. An ARC Broken pc on an L-1C will peel off charge and come uptone gradually as each reading line is handled. Sometimes it comes in a spectacular huge cog and VVGIs and dial F/N, but that’s usually after charge has been taken off on a gradient. What’s expected is an F/N as that charge being handled moves off.
In Ruds it’s the same idea. When you’ve got your F/N and that charge has moved off, indicate it. Don’t push the pc on and on for some “EP”. You’ve got it.
Now a major grade process will run to F/N, Cog, VGIs and release. You’ll have an ability regained. But that’s a grade process on a set up flying pc.
Mistakenly applying the Power EP rule to Ruds will have the pc messed up by overrun. It invalidates the pc’s wins and keys the charge back in. The pc will start thinking he hasn’t blown the charge and can’t do anything about it.
In 1970 I had to write the HCO B “F/Ns and End Phenomena” to cure auditors of chopping pc EPs on major actions by indicating F/Ns too soon. This is one type of F/N abuse which has largely been handled.
That bulletin and Power EP handling have been in some instances misapplied in the direction of overrun. “The pc isn’t getting EP on these chains as there’s no cognition, just ‘it erased’,” is one example. Obviously the C/S didn’t understand the definition of cognition or what an EP is. Another example is the pc spots what it is and F/Ns and the auditor carries on, expecting an “EP”.
An OT is particularly subject to F/N abuse as he can blow things quite rapidly. If the auditor misses the F/N due to too high a sensitivity setting or doesn’t call it as he’s waiting for an “EP”, overrun occurs. It invalidates an OT’s ability to as-is and causes severe upsets.
This error can also stem from auditor speed. The auditor, used to auditing lower level pcs or never trained to audit OTs, can’t keep up with the OT and misses his F/Ns or reads.
Thus overruns occur and charged areas are bypassed.
This could account for those cases who were flying then fell on their heads with the same problems that blew back again.
The remedy of this problem begins with thoroughly clearing all terms connected with EPs. This is basically Word Clearing Method 6, Key Words.
The next action is to get my HCO Bs on the subject of EPs and also related metering HCO Bs fully understood and starrated. This would be followed by clay demos of various EPs of processes and actions showing the mechanics of the bank and what happens with the pc and meter.
TRs and meter drills on spotting F/Ns would follow, including any needed obnosis drills and correction of meter position so that the auditor could see the pc, meter and his admin at a glance.
Then, the auditor would be gradiently drilled on handling the pc, meter and admin at increasing rates of speed including recognizing and indicating EPs when they occurred. When the auditor could do all of this smoothly at the high rate of speed of an OT blowing things by inspection without fumbling, the last action would be bullbaited drills like TRs 103 and 104, on a gradient to a level of competence whereby the auditor could handle anything that came up at speed and do so smoothly.
Then you’d really have an OT auditor. And that’s what you’ll have to do to make them.
Overrun and underrun alike mess up cases.
Both stem from an auditor inability to recognize and handle different types of EPs and inexpertness in handling the tools of auditing at speed.
Don’t overrun pcs and have to repair them.
Let the pc have his wins.