A C/S may and should know exactly what is wrong with a case.
When he “knows” by hunches or intuition and does not bother to confirm or make a wider effort, he can miss the case entirely.
Example: C/S says to himself — I know what’s wrong with Joe. His wife. So I’ll C/S “O/W on your wife”.
Some of the time the C/S will be right. This gives him a win and confirms him in sloppy C/Sing. He does not bother to know before he C/Ses.
A C/S who gets a low percentage of cracked cases and a low percent of F/N VGIs at Examiner usually fails to “know before he goes”. He just goes, which is to say he just writes programs and C/Ses without finding out enough about the case.
A skilled C/S may very well be able to figure out exactly what’s wrong with the case. That’s his job. But how does he find out anything about the case at all?
The answer is very simple. So simple it gets missed. the C/S gets data on the case.
How does he do this?
The broadest, most used answer to how to know is prepared lists. These have all sorts of questions on them that read or don’t read. There are lots of these lists beginning with the famous PC Assessment Form. There are all sorts of lists. An end product of any list is data on the pc one uses to program and C/S the case.
The next answer to how to get data is lists prepared by the C/S himself and which are assessed by the Auditor.
Another answer is 2-way comm on questions written by the C/S. “What do you consider hasn’t been handled on your case?” is a jewel which gives you the hidden standard to List and Null and run Who or what would have _________ to BD F/N Item and O/W on the item found. But there are dozens more. “How do you feel about your family?” “R Factor: The C/S is concerned about your saying your case sags after wins in auditing. Could you tell me exactly what happens and what your history has been on this?” There is no limit to such questions. And, if taken from what the pc says to Examiner or from auditors’ comments on Worksheets, they will usually F/N. But mainly they give data.
When regular actions fail, there is always the D of P. “D of P to Interview Richard Roe and find out what he’s trying to do in session. Also how he looks, mannerisms, etc.”
Data, Data, Data. Now you have a picture of this case.
Usually, by prepared lists issued or from C/S prepared lists, the C/S finds and gets handled by the auditor in the same session much of what is wrong. This combines finding out with handling.
Any prepared list carried to F/N on each read (Method 3) or the indicated action done will give case gain. Maybe it’s all the case gain one could ask for.
But such reads even if F/Ned and the text in the Worksheet give the C/S new data about this case.
Even if he now KNOWS, the C/S does not narrowly shoot at one target. He gives alternatives as well in his C/S.
Example: C/S knows pc is concerned about F/Ns. He does not necessarily just write “Prepcheck F/Ns”. Instead the C/S writes “Assess Auditors, Auditing, Dianetics, Scientology, F/Ns, Processing, false reads. Prepcheck each reading item, taking largest read first.” This gives a broader band, more chance of hitting the button needed.
There are many ways to do this. Example: You “know” it is a misdefined word. You don’t C/S “Find the misdefined word”. You write, “Assess Method 3 and Handle the Word Clearing Correction List”. For you see, the session might also have been run over an out rud.
To abruptly C/S everything the pc has just said is a Q and A. But worse, it can lead to evaluation.
Pc Remarks are like little Flags that may signal a much deeper deposit of aberration. Only the little flag shows. “I don’t like women,” can uncover a whole background. “I keep getting this pain in my side” opens the door to a whole chain of operations and one to be done next week!
But by the broad rule, the C/S doesn’t dive at it. He says “Pc has pain in side. I. C/S 54.”
Not “List the somatics in his side”. But a whole coverage of accidents, illnesses. One will also have a side pain as a result. “Appendicitis Operation” is enough to give anyone a pain in the side if never audited out!
A C/S who sees a case is thick foldered and not well tags the case “Resistive”. There are 7 resistive cases listed in the Class VIII material. For this the C/S has “GF40 Expanded Method 3” and then handles the lists and engrams indicated in it in his next C/S.
If this doesn’t handle, the case is in an out Ethics situation that should be looked into.
The C/S mentally tags the easy ones and the tough ones. The tough ones he plays
The C/S can also find an auditor considers a fast case a bad case when it is just a fast case.
The primary record is the pc’s folder. When the case does not run well it can be assumed that the case is
(a) Resistive (b) Errors have been made in auditing.
These two assumptions are valid in all cases which do not easily resolve. They are both valid because the case, being resistive, was running poorly, was hard to audit and C/S earlier.
From the folder, from prepared lists, from C/S’s own additions to prepared lists, from C/S’s own prepared lists, from 2WC on questions and from D of P Interviews one can get enough data to intelligently program and C/S a case.
All this may seem very obvious. But, in word clearing the most Common C/S error has been to fail to order a Word Clearing Correction List done. Instead one reads, “Correct the last word found”. This misses that the whole thing may be being done over a withhold or ARC Break. It might be another word entirely. So a C/S who does this risks the wrong target. He is not C/Sing broadly enough.
Also one sees a repair or life program consisting of two or three special processes and without any lists at all.
One also sees a program which seeks to handle several things the C/S “knew” were wrong followed by “8. C/S 53, 9. GF 40X, 10. C/S 54.” Having gone, this program then seeks to find out. It’s quite backwards.
Thus the C/S who goes before he knows is going to have an awful lot of no F/Ns at the Examiner.
The watchword is know before you go.