All processing can be broken down into three separate parts for any level of auditing.
These three parts are:
(1) Basic Auditing
(2) Technique and
(3) Case Analysis.
The handling of the pc as a being, the auditing cycle, the meter, comprise the segment of processing known as Basic Auditing.
If an auditor cannot handle this segment or any part of it well, trouble will develop in the other two segments (technique and case analysis). When technique and case analysis seem to fail "even when done by the book" the fault commonly lies in Basic Auditing. One or more of the five faults elsewhere listed will be present and these faults effectively prevent any technique or case analysis from working.
Where Scientology "isn't working", the wrong first places to look are technique and case analysis. The right place to look is Basic Auditing.
Until an auditor can handle a pc in session easily, handle a meter smoothly and accurately and is flawless in his auditing cycle, he or she should have no hope of making any technique work or of analyzing any case for anything.
In smooth Basic Auditing lies the open sesame to all cases, for only then do technique and case analysis function. The gun barrel is Basic Auditing. Technique and Case Analysis form the Ammunition and sight. A poor basic auditor using a fine technique is firing ammunition with no gun. It doesn't go anywhere.
There is a level of Basic Auditing for every level of Scientology. At the lowest level it is only the ability to sit and listen. It grows in complexity from there up to the fabulous co-ordination of pc, auditing cycle and meter so flawless that neither auditor nor pc are aware of the presence of Basic Auditing at all, but only the actions of the technique and the guidance of case analysis. And between those two practices of Basic Auditing lie many gradients.
Basic Auditing is the rock on which all gains are built.
The techniques of Scientology are many, spread out over 13 years of development.
A technique is a process or some action that is done by auditor and pc under the auditor's direction.
The lowest technique is the single co-audit question given by the supervisor to let the pc Itsa. The highest is the complex listing of goals and GPMs.
A technique is a patterned action, invariable and unchanging, composed of certain steps or actions calculated to bring about tone arm action and thus better or free a thetan.
There have been thousands of techniques. Less than a hundred, at a guess, are in common recommended use for the various levels of auditing.
Techniques have their place in various levels of auditing today rather than various differences of case.
As cases may be audited only at the level in which they are trained, by modern ruling, and as several techniques exist at each level for choice out of Case Analysis, it will be found quite simple to select a technique and get results with it. Safe auditing and good sense dictate such selection and classing of techniques, and trouble only results when someone sells himself out of his level to a high fast flounder.
Techniques exist in tables and texts for the various levels and it will be found that these give the best case results applied in that way.
Case Analysis establishes two things (a) What is going on with the case and (b) What should be done with it.
Case Analysis is a new subject to auditors at this time. It is commonly confused with techniques and the gravest fault is treating Case Analysis as only another assessment technique.
There is a level of Case Analysis for every level or class, to compare with the Basic Auditing and Technique of that class.
My first development in this new segment of processing was Programming. This is the consecutive techniques or actions a case should have to get adequate Tone Arm action and achieve a new plateau of ability.
But Case Analysis itself has steps like (a) and (b) above.
There is also an invariable sequence of application in a more advanced Case Analysis. These steps should be very, very well known by a trained auditor since all Case Analysis fits into them:
1. Discover what the pc is "sitting in".
2. Have the pc detail what assumptions and considerations he or she has had about it; and
3. Identify it fully and correctly.
The "it" above can be as slight as a worry, as bothersome as a Present Time Problem or as overwhelming as a Goals Problem Mass. Whatever "it" is the Case Analysis steps would be the same.
In the first step the survey may be very brief. It should certainly have certainty in it for the pc. It can be very general. It can be a part of a case or a geographical location. The pc could be clear or insane. The sequence or the 3 steps would be the same.
The next step (2) gets the lies off, giving TA action and thus clearing away charge for a more accurate assault in (3). This second step can be very lengthy as in Level Two or very brief as in OT auditing techniques. But it must exist whether short or long. Otherwise the analysis is heavily hindered by the lies and these will read on the meter and upset the analysis or they will cloud the pc's perception on which all Itsa depends. So the lies must come off in any Case Analysis. Usually this is quite permissive and gently done. But it can amount to also pulling missed withholds. It all depends on the level on which the analysis is being done and what is being analyzed. This step (2) becomes itself a technique at lower levels. It is just a spatter and promise at high level auditing.
The third step can be long or short but must always be there. Here, with the charge gone in (2), the auditor and pc can now identify the thing much better and the pc can have a final certainty on it. Usually at lower levels, the certainty is only that it is gone. The familiar "How do you feel about that problem now?" "What problem?" is a lower level result of Case Analysis. At the highest level, "On checking the meter, I find that is a wrong Item" would be the auditor's final (3) statement.
So Case Analysis at any level has as its action establishing what the pc is in, what it has been supposed to be and what it now is (or isn't).
Anything from a habit to a headache could be analyzed in this way. At the lowest levels it could occupy an intensive, at the highest levels five minutes.
ARC Break handling has been the most familiar tool of Case Analysis.
Case Analysis handles the momentary or prolonged problem, determines the technique to be used, and is always done with Basic Auditing.
An auditor has three hats. One is his Basic Auditor's hat. This he never takes off. The other two are his Technique hat and his Case Analysis hat and these he switches back and forth at need.
These are the three segments. Put together well, they make successful auditing.