Русская версия

Site search:
ENGLISH DOCS FOR THIS DATE- Definitions (IPS-01) - BTB721204R75

Revised 13 May 1975
Remimeo Integrity Processing Series 1R


INTEGRITY PROCESSING is that processing which increases a person’s personal integrity and trust in himself and others by freeing him of past overts, withholds and missed withholds.

DEFINITION: Overt — A harmful or contra-survival act. Precisely, it is an act of commission or omission that harms the greater number of dynamics.

DEFINITION: Withhold — An undisclosed contra-survival act; a no action after the fact of action, in which the individual has done or been an accessory to doing something which is a transgression against some moral or ethical code consisting of agreements to which the individual has subscribed in order to guarantee, with others, the survival of a group with which he is co-acting or has co-acted toward survival.

DEFINITION: Missed Withhold — An undisclosed contra-survival act which has been restimulated by another but not disclosed. This is a withhold which another person nearly found out about, leaving the person with the withhold in a state of wondering whether his hidden deed is known or not.

Integrity is defined as:

1. The condition of having no part or element taken away or wanting; undivided or unbroken state; wholeness.

2. The condition of not being marred or violated; unimpaired or uncorrupted condition; soundness.

3. Soundness or moral principle; the character of uncorrupted virtue, especially in relation to truth and fair dealing; uprightness, honesty, sincerity.

This relates to Ethics which is defined as “the principles of right and wrong conduct and the specific moral choices to be made by the individual in his relationship with others”.

Thus we see that a person who acts against his own moral codes and the mores of the group violates his integrity and is said to be out-ethics.

Such acts are called overts. A person having committed an overt and then withholding the fact of that overt, and withholding himself from committing further overts, will individuate from the group. The group itself will then lose integrity as it becomes divided and lacks wholeness.

Integrity Processing is therefore that processing which enables a person, within the reality of his own moral codes and those of the group, to reveal his overts so he no longer requires to withhold and so enhances his own integrity and that of the group.


In the early ‘60s LRH developed the technology known as Sec Checking. As issued it was used for two purposes: as a general processing tool to clean up a pc’s overts and withholds and as a security tool to detect out-ethics persons and security risks.

In 1970 this technology was refined and issued under the name of Confessionals.

In 1972 a complete update was done of basic O/W tech and the earlier procedures of Sec Checking and Confessionals. A new technology emerged — Integrity Processing.

Recently Integrity Processing has been reviewed as to its workability and most optimum usage by LRH and certain revisions have been made.


Integrity Processing has two uses. Its basic use is as a tool for pc case gain, increase in responsibility and case progress. As such it belongs at Exp Grade II on the Grade Chart. You can’t expect a pc with unhandled Drugs, who can’t communicate because others don’t really exist (Grade 0), and who is caved in by problems (Grade I) that he hasn’t even cognited on, to have enough responsibility to answer up on O/Ws (Grade II). Therefore, Integ as a full RD goes at Exp Grade II. It is usually programmed to be done at or towards the end of the Grade and a full battery of Integ lists are used. It is not a mandatory Grade II Exp process, but is recommended.

The second use of Integrity Processing is as an ethics or security measure. It is used here as part of staff requirements or when a security clearance is needed. As such it has no case prerequisites and is not subject to such things as the Drug RD rule as it is not being used for pc case gain. Only one or at most two Integ lists would be used.

When used as an ethics or security measure, Integ can be done as auditing in a session (and is therefore subject to the Auditor’s Code), or can be done as a straight security action, not “in session”. In the case of the latter, the person must be informed that he isn’t being audited. The technical procedure in either case would be the same.

It is noted that use of Integ as a non-session security measure or in the case of severe out-ethics is rare, and nothing here condones misuse or abuse of Integrity Processing as a security or ethics action. Such misuse would be itself subject to immediate and severe Ethics action as it would constitute an extreme betrayal of trust.


The need for a person to be able to morally cleanse himself by confession of sins has long been recognized in religion.

The Buddhist monk 2,500 years ago was permitted to confess and seek expiation for “acts of censure”. The penalty for failure to confess was loss of the rights and privileges of a monk. This was enforcement of the natural law that he who commits actions against the codes or mores of the group separates himself from that group.

The Bible, in the Books of James and John, calls for the confession of sins.

Early Christian handling of confession was largely concerned with disciplinary aspects. The sinner had to wear sackcloth, make his bed in ashes, and fast. This went on for a time proportionate to the gravity of the offence, sometimes for years.

Certain sins were previously considered too serious for forgiveness and therefore not open to confession, but a gradual leniency developed as in the case of Calixtus, Bishop of Rome 217-222, who decided to admit adulterers to exomologesis (Greek for public confession).

In the 4th Century at Rome and Constantinople we hear of “penitentiaries” — priests appointed to act for the Bishop in hearing the confession of sins and deciding whether public discipline was necessary.

Due to some misuse of public confession, individual private confession became more prominent in the 5th Century.

In 1215 the Council of the Lateran ruled that everyone must make confession at least once a year before his parish priest.

In Confession as now administered in Christian Churches the disciplinary penance is often little more than nominal, stress being laid rather on the fullness of the confession.

Thus for at least 2,500 years confession has played an important role in religious practice.

Throughout the centuries two points of question have arisen which led to some unpopularity of confession. One was the possible misuse of information disclosed in public confession, hence the development of private confession before an authorized person whose code of conduct prevented misuse. The other was the infliction of disciplinary action as atonement for the sins confessed. But the latter goes beyond the realm of personal morals and ethics into justice. Confession itself, and the need for some form of confession has not been in question.

With Integrity Processing Scientology follows in the tradition of religion. This processing enables the individual to confess to overts without duress. It is done with a qualified Auditor bound by the Auditor’s Code. Disciplinary action forms no part of the processing.

The technology by which Integrity Processing is delivered is new. It is not the same as any earlier technology either in Scientology or other religion. It does however follow in the longstanding tradition of religion in providing a means for the individual to admit to and take responsibility for transgression against the mores of the group and so regain a spiritual and moral integrity.

Compiled from LRH briefings
and materials
Reissued as BTB by
Flag Mission 1234
Revised by
W/O Ron Shafran CS-4
Approved by
Commodore’s Staff Aides
Board of Issues
for the