Русская версия

Site search:
- Interviews - B810401-2

RUSSIAN DOCS FOR THIS DATE- Интервью - Б810401-2
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
(Also issued as an HCO PL, same date and title.)
Remimeo Exec Hats Dissem Tech Qual Registrar Hat D of P Hat C/S Hat HCO Div 6 Chaplain Hat Ethics Officers


“A proper org board is a perpetual combination of flows which do not collide with one another and which do enter and do experience the desired change and which do leave as a product.”

Org Series 1
HCO PL 13 Sep 70, Iss II

Interviews play a vital part in the correct routing and smooth flow of pcs and students on org lines.

They are an integral part of the functioning system of an org.

Depending upon how needed interviews are assigned and carried out, org lines and therefore org products can be slowed or impeded or bypassed or dis­rupted, or they can be speeded up and made to flow more smoothly, with real products as the result.

The right type of interview, standardly done at the right time (when needed) by the right org terminal on the right public (PC or student) will always serve to grease the org lines.

Mis-used or mis-assigned interviews can and will scramble the scene, and with a scrambled scene the products suffer.

An interview is defined as a face-to-face meeting between the interviewer and another person, where questions are asked of the person to obtain data needed to accomplish the purpose of the interview.

“The purpose of the interview” is the key phrase here. If one doesn’t know the purpose of the type of interview his post calls for, it can all go sadly awry.

That’s when you get a Reg taking up case problems with a PC or attempting some kind of case debug or promising him a specific result. Or the D of P getting into questions of finance in an attempt to sell a PC more auditing, or even doing some sort of auditing under the guise of a “D of P interview.” Or one or both of these posts attempting to, wear a “consultant” hat. You get a mix-up of functions, a mix-up of the lines, and you don’t get the needed or expected result.

This bulletin serves to lay out several of the main types of interviews used in an org and get them briefly defined as to purpose and function so the lines can and will flow smoothly.


REGISTRAR INTERVIEW: The Registrar interview is given to determine what service the person wants, to channel and intensify his wants, sign him up for service and re-sign him for further services and to assist him in the resolu­tion of any problems in signing up for the service.

The Registrar uses the Reg Interview to familiarize the person with the service, to give him explanatory literature on training or processing, to answer his questions (but NOT technical questions) about a service, and to assist him in the handling of the finance for the service, acting in a financial consultant capacity.

Registrars sign people up for training and for processing. With the org pro­moting and delivering its services properly, a healthy majority of the sign-ups should be for training as we are in the business of making auditors, and therein lies our real expansion.

The Reg interview of the trainee or potential trainee is ordinarily a straight­forward uncomplicated procedure. It’s a matter of: What training, if any, has he had? With that determined, it’s a matter of signing him up for his next (or first) level of training and any prerequisites required for that level. It’s a very direct route up the Training Bridge, and the Reg’s job handling such sign-ups is com­paratively simple.

The Reg interview when signing up a PC for processing may entail more know-how and handling on the part of the Reg.

The Reg must be familiar with the tech the org delivers and with technical results and wins achieved. But a Reg must not assign auditing hours or C/S the case or promise that such and such a rundown will be done. That is the hat of the C/S. But a Reg does give interviews and he should be trained to find a person’s ruin. He establishes a comm line with the person and establishes himself as a ter­minal to help the person get onto the service he needs and wants as swiftly as pos­sible.

Signing the person up for the required number of hours or intensives per his Technical Estimate is a part of the Reg interview and registration cycle. (Tech Es­timate: the estimated number of hours or intensives that will be needed for the PC to make case progress and get stable results.) But determining the correct Tech Es­timate for the PC is not part of the Reg interview. That is only done by a qualified tech terminal. The Reg’s role here is to interview the person and initially sign him up and have him pay for the service on a conditional basis, pending his Technical Estimate and acceptance on HGC lines. He then routes the person for his Technical Estimate and, when that is made, the Reg now completes the cycle by signing the person up for the hours required by the Technical Estimate. (Ref. HCO PL 10 March 78 HGC PC APPLICATION FORM, HCO PL 30 Nov 71 Corrected and Reissued 2 Dec 71 BLIND REGISTRATION, and HCO PL 19 Aug 60 REGIS­TRAR LOST LINE)

(The interview given the PC by the Technical Estimator is covered in its own section in this issue, along with listed references on the Tech Estimate Line.)

Should a PC who is mid-auditing (not yet a completion) need to purchase more hours, the sign-up is handled promptly in a routine Reg interview. Occasion­ally, however, such an interview might go like this:

PC: “Ted brought me down here and I’m supposed to sign up for more hours to complete my auditing, but I don’t want to buy more auditing here. I don’t want any more auditing.”

Reg: “Well, we’d better have you see the D of P so we can get data on this!”

That’s the totality of the Reg interview in that situation. The Reg promptly puts it on the proper lines so the necessary data can be obtained. He notifies the D of P who gets the folder to the C/S at once. The C/S, after going over the folder, can then determine what needs to be taken up in the D of P interview, or whether it would be handled by the PC’s regular auditor or requires sending the PC to the Qual Div for a review.

The Reg might also encounter a PC needing more hours to complete a run­down who is willing to sign up and pay for the additional time but who is not VGIs on his auditing, or who originates he is having a rough time in his auditing and/or has bad indicators. The Reg would, of course, sign the PC up for the additional hours promptly.

But in either of the above or similar cases, the Reg would also write up a BI (Bad Indicator) report and route it directly to the Snr C/S in Qual, so he could look into it, with a copy to the HGC C/S. It’s not a matter of the Reg routing the PC to Qual, however, as the PC is still on Tech lines. (Ref. HCOB 26 Sep 74 HAND­LING FLUBBED PCs)

Note that the Reg doesn’t interview the PC to get the data about the bad auditing or bad indicators; the Reg simply writes up a report to the Snr C/S with a copy to the HGC C/S as to what he heard and observed with this PC. These lines got all crossed up in earlier days when the D of P more often than not was also the Reg, and this got people confused. But any confusion must be taken out of it and the correct routing and correct interviewing put in.

When an individual has completed an org service and has routed through Qual and Success as complete, a Reg interview is always given to re-sign him for his next service. This is ordinarily a smooth, routine cycle, as a standardly com­pleted student or PC will have good indicators at the prospect of getting onto his next action. But should the Reg encounter bad indicators or a resistance to getting further services, it is an indicator that something has been missed on the student or PC. That is a matter for Qual correction, not something that would be handled in a Reg interview. In such a case the Reg, maintaining good ARC, efficiently routes the person to Qual where the matter does get handled. (Ref. BPL 4 Dec 71, Issue I, RE-SIGN UP REFUSALS, HANDLING OF)

The Reg is there to sign the person up, to re-sign him and to route him to the proper terminal for what he needs. There is no charge, ever, for a Registrar inter­view.

HGC PC TECHNICAL ESTIMATE INTERVIEW: The Technical Es­timate interview is done to obtain necessary data from the applicant so that an ac­curate estimate can be made of the number of hours or intensives the person will need to get stable results from his auditing.

When a PC has been initially signed up for services and has been tested, he is routed to the Technical Estimator. (This could be the D of P or a technically qualified person deputized by the D of P for this purpose.) The Estimator, having reviewed the person’s test results, folder, and forms filled out by the Registrar, in­terviews the applicant, using the HGC PC Estimation Form (BTB 12 Feb 78R, Reiss. 6.7. 78). Such an interview covers what the applicant wants to accomplish, somatics or other problems he is trying to handle, length of time on earlier actions, and other information pertinent to the case.

When all the necessary data has been obtained, and when the Technical Es­timate for that individual has been made, the Estimator gives the person an R-Fac­tor regarding his estimate, handles any questions he may have, and sends the appli­cant back to the Registrar for final sign-up for the estimated number of intensives.

That’s the essence of the Tech Estimate interview. It’s: “What do you want to accomplish with auditing?”, followed by lots of questions about the state of the case. Also asked would be the time it has taken him to do this or that action. For instance, the Estimator needs to know that it took the PC 25 hours to do Grade 0 and 1 in order to estimate how long it will take him to do Grade 2, 3 and 4. It can be done either metered or unmetered. (When done in the field by a Remote Reg or Tours personnel it is usually unmetered.) Though it follows the HGC PC Estima­tion Form it is never done rotely.


The routing for a Tech Estimate is to the Registrar, to Testing, to the Tech Estimator and back to the Registrar for full sign-up. This line and all of its actions are fully covered in the following issues:

Technical Estimates and Tech Estimate interviews are not charged for, but are given when the applicant has initially signed up and made a donation for serv­ice.

D OF P INTERVIEW: As D of P interviews are sometimes misunderstood as to their purpose and function, and sometimes mis-used (by having other actions thrown into them erroneously under the label of “D of P interview”), this issue spells out what a D of P interview is and what it is not.

Briefly, a D of P interview is an interview given to a PC on auditing lines by the D of P, as ordered by the C/S:

1. to get data for the C/S which is not otherwise available to him for C/Sing and programming the case,


2. to give the PC an R-factor on what is going on in order to dispel a mystery for him.

The C/S would order a D of P interview when he needs data not contained in the usual sources (the worksheets, PC folder, FES, test scores, exam reports, ethics or medical records). To use it otherwise, to call for such an interview in lieu of folder study, for example, would be lazy C/Sing.

But the D of P interview is used when the C/S needs data from the PC him­self, or when he suspects his C/Ses aren’t being done or that the auditor can’t audit. It is used when he has reason to believe there may be omitted or hidden matter or false reports in the worksheets, or when it appears that additives are being entered into the session. Ordinarily it is used only when the case is packed up. And pri­marily what the C/S wants to know from this is: “What did the auditor do?” The data obtained is then used, if it applies, for correction of the auditor as well as for C/Sing and programming the case. The D of P interview is also used when it is suspected that factors are being put in on the PC outside of the session.

Such an interview may also be ordered to find out what the PC is confused or in mystery about so that it can then be explained to him. (Note: You don’t explain tech to the PC, but if he has a confusion or a mystery you do explain to him what is going on and what is expected of him.)

D of P interviews, then, are to get data, not to try to “audit” or try to accom­plish a result. The D of P does not audit, he does not rehab, he does not Date/Locate anything on the PC. That D of P interviews do sometimes accomplish a result is incidental, and this must not be used as a reason for the D of P to get into attempting to audit or rehab the PC. Those are actions for the auditor to do.

There will be times when the C/S wants specific, muzzled questions asked of the PC and nothing else. In such instances the D of P carries out his instructions exactly, asking only those questions he has been instructed to ask.

D of P interviews are always done on the meter, with all PC answers, PC in­dicators and tone level, meter reads and their size and any blowdowns marked. Thus, the D of P must have his TRs in, must have Qual Okay to operate an E-Meter and must be able to meter accurately. While the interview is not done to get case gain, the D of P would normally end the interview on an F/N and should try to do so.

As the D of P is the In Charge of all PCs when they are in the org, he himself may originate a D of P interview when it is warranted. For example, on observing bad indicators in a PC he could initiate an interview with the PC at once and then get the data immediately to the C/S. Or he would alert the C/S to the situation and suggest an interview be done.

Otherwise, the D of P interview is given per C/S order. It may not be ordered by a Registrar or other org terminal. It is only done, when needed, on PCs who have signed up, paid for and are on HGC lines for auditing. Otherwise it can easily lead into Free Service and has done so in some instances in the past, to the detri­ment of the org. Though it is done as part of the overall cycle of delivering paid auditing, the time spent in a D of P interview is not subtracted from the auditing hours the PC has paid for.

There are many other functions the D of P carries out as a part of his hat. But this clarifies what we term a D of P interview. It is its own action and must not be confused with a Reg interview, a Technical Estimate, a Consultant type of action or a 2-way comm action C/Sed for and carried out by an auditor in an actual ses­sion or anything else other than what it is. Properly used, it is of great assistance to the C/S for data he needs which is otherwise unavailable.

QUAL CONSULTANT INTERVIEW: This is a case-cracking type of inter­view, done by the posted Qual Consultant. (Optimumly, any org would have this post filled by a single-hatted terminal, in its Qual Division.)

Here you have a technical person using a metered interview to unravel a case that’s in trouble or in bad condition and being mysterious. He uses the interview to get the data needed to resolve it.

The consultant interview is not a Tech C/S-ordered action. It’s done when there’s a hidden factor in the case and you haven’t got all the data. The hidden factor may be in the auditing or C/Sing that has been done; therefore it is not a Tech C/S-ordered action. A D of P interview in such an instance could cloud the issue. It calls for a Qual Consultant action because it’s something the C/S and auditor should have seen but they didn’t see. So it is a matter of what didn’t they see or what did they do or not do?

It can be ordered by the Senior C/S in Qual when something has gone very wrong with a case, or it can be originated by the Qual Consultant himself where he has spotted bad indicators or been alerted to a poor success story or something similar.

This type of interview is done on a person who is not really on auditing lines. He’s been pulled off auditing lines, possibly for the above reasons, or he’s some­where around auditing lines and you see he is fouled up, or he has come on Qual lines because he is fouled up. It’s not limited to PCs but would be done on very slow or dropped out students as well.

The consultant interview is always metered, is always begun with “I’m not auditing you,” and is quite a different action than auditing. One might call it a re­view session of sorts with the difference here being that the consultant does what he needs to do to get the data that can then be used to resolve the case in a session. He guides the interview as he needs to, deftly getting the PC off “grandmother” who doesn’t read or marital problems that start the TA up, and steers it skillfully to what the trouble really is.

When I’m doing one of these things I don’t just find out what is wrong and in­dicate the BPC, I push it through until I know what is wrong and in addition I fin­ish the person up with an F/N. I take it to a resolution of his immediate problem and I indicate the bypassed charge. Then it’s a matter of writing up the interview and getting it into the folder.

The person will probably require further auditing on it, but now at least the case has been cracked a bit and it’s known what it’s going to take to unravel the rest of it.

What is described here is a consultant interview, which is its own type of ac­tion and which may sometimes reveal the need for a Review session.

The interview is not charged for. However, if it becomes necessary to take the person into session to handle, it is then invoiced on standard Qual lines.

SOLO CONSULTANT INTERVIEW AT AN AO: At an Advanced Org, the C/S, lacking data on what has gone wrong with a messed up case, or solo session, sends the solo auditor who is on auditing lines to the Solo Consultant for a metered interview.

This terminal must be a skilled technician and be very, very familiar with the Advance Course materials, as the solo auditor: (a) very often doesn’t present a complete enough picture of what happened in the session, and/or (b) could have MUs on the material and not be running it stan­dardly. In this case a correction list would not necessarily pick it up because the solo auditor doesn’t know that he doesn’t know. He doesn’t realize what he’s doing wrong.

The Solo Consultant using the meter and his knowledge of the materials, can find out. In his interview he does a swift debug action, going A to B to get what’s hanging the case up. He handles what can be handled on the spot, indicating im­mediate bypassed charge that comes up, for example. He notes the full data for the C/S so that a full Review cycle can be C/Sed for, if needed, or cramming or retread ordered, if that is required.

The Solo Consultant interview is not charged for, as the PC is already on org lines on a signed up and paid for solo auditing action.

ETHICS OFFICER/MAA INTERVIEWS: The Ethics Officer or the MAA in a Sea Org Org conducts ethics interviews as an HCO function, gets PTS (Potential Trouble Source) A to J checks done and sometimes does full PTS interviews.

Students or PCs, where out-ethics is obvious or suspected, are interviewed to determine the extent and nature of the out-ness so the correct ethics gradient can be applied. The interview should include bringing the person to an understanding of ethics and the conditions and guiding him through any needed ethics handling cy­cles or correct application of the conditions.

Whether or not the interview is done metered depends on what type of ethics action the Ethics Officer is doing. For example, if he were trying to find out who stole something, he had better do this on a meter to ensure that he gets the data and does not miss withholds or clean cleans. Any Ethics Officer must be meter trained and be able to do a correctly metered ethics interview when it is called for. Ideally he should be able to do HCO Confessionals too. An Ethics Officer must ensure that ethics is gotten in to the degree that tech can then go in.

The PTS interview is given to determine whether or not the person is PTS and if so, the type of PTSness which is in need of handling. It is done on a meter with all reads marked, on a PC or student who is manifesting symptoms of PTSness, such as becoming sick, losing gains or roller-coastering. The interview may be given in HCO or by a classed auditor, but in any case it must always be done by a person who knows his PTS tech well, who has good TRs and knows 2-way comm and who has been trained to operate a meter properly.

The PC or student will often require more handling of the PTS condition after the interview, but it is through the interview that it is determined what type of PTSness (if any) is involved to be handled.

If a PC is mid-auditing, the MAA or Ethics Officer should always check with the PC’s C/S before doing a PTS interview or any metered ethics action. (Ref. HCOB 8 March 71R, C/S Series 29R, CASE ACTIONS, OFF LINE)

Full worksheets are always kept for any PTS interview and are sent to the person’s PC folder. The worksheets of an ethics interview are filed in the person’s ethics file and a copy of these, or a report on the interview, is sent to the person’s PC or student folder.

Ethics and PTS interviews when given to PCs and students who are on lines on signed up and paid for services are not charged for.

CHAPLAIN INTERVIEW: A Chaplain’s interview is for people who feel wronged, people who have fallen off the Bridge or are about to, people whose bur­dens appear to be too great and who need a terminal and some communication to help them sort it all out.

The whole purpose of the Chaplain interview is first to provide a terminal for a person who simply needs to be heard and understood. From there it’s a matter of channeling the person into something he can do about it on the correct gradient. Such a person may actually be on org lines but having difficulty on the lines or he may have fallen off the lines altogether.

The interview gets the person into communication in order to obtain the data necessary to channel and direct him to the specific area where the situation can be addressed and handled.

The Chaplain’s interview itself is not charged for. Some of the services avail­able in the Chaplain’s Department such as Marriage Counseling, Chaplain’s Courts, etc. are charged for at very nominal fees.

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/COMMANDING OFFICER INTERVIEW: When a person has completed his services, he is interviewed by the CO or ED before he routes out of the org.

This provides the CO or ED with the opportunity to do a direct check on the products his org is producing. If he doesn’t see a shiny product, if the person isn’t 100% satisfied with the service he’s received, it tells a CO or ED there’s out tech in his org, as the person has already gone through Qual and Success lines. He acts at once to get a fast review done to handle any bypassed charge and/or repair needed, at no charge to the person. Should the person then validly need more hours to fully complete the service, he is signed up for them standardly.

This type of interview is covered quite fully in HCO PL 21 September 80 MONITORING TECH QUALITY IN ORGS. It is a useful tool for the CO or ED, not only for promoting goodwill and good PR but for ensuring no overt product gets out of his org and that the org is delivering standard tech with good wins for those it services.

The interview may be given to a person who is not yet complete on his serv­ices, should the CO or ED notice that he has bad indicators. Ordinarily, however, it is given to students and PCs who have completed their signed up and paid for services. This interview is never charged for.

HOST INTERVIEW: On Flag there is an LRH Host whose duty it is to see to the well-being and good servicing of Flag public.

The purpose of the initial Host interview is to welcome the person arriving for services, brief him and orient him to the scene and provide him at once with a sta­ble terminal who is interested in his welfare and will be a terminal for him throughout his stay.

Thereafter the Host interviews Flag PCs and students as needful to ensure they are being serviced and to ensure any service outness is handled by the proper terminals.

Returning persons are similarly welcomed, re-briefed and brought up to date on any changes in services or new facilities.

There is no charge for any Host interview, as this is included as a part of signed up and paid for Flag services.

While these are by no means all the types of interview an org uses, they are the more major interviews given on an org’s service lines.

Interviews — correctness of — can make or break an org’s lines and an org’s vi­ability.

With the necessary distinctions made between them and with interview hats separated out and worn effectively, particles can flow easily on the lines. The re­sult will be an increase in quantity and quality of the valuable final products of the org.

Assisted by Research and Technical Compilations Unit