A D of P confessed she could not get a goal to fall whenever an auditor did an assessment. The auditor would do an assessment, bring the pc in for D of P check, but the goal would not fall again.
This, of course, is improper assessment.
The auditor should get a full list of goals including childhood goals, withheld goals, anti-social goals, and (by meter reaction on question) “Any goal you have not told me about”.
Auditor gets every possible goal until the meter is nul on the question of goals the pc might have.
Then the auditor reads the whole list of goals to the pc and writes in divisions and fractions of divisions of fall for each. One division on the meter dial is marked “I” after the goal. One half a division is marked ‘‘1/2’’, etc after the written goal.
The auditor then covers the whole list again, reading them to the pc.
Pc does not have to answer verbally any of these questions, “How do you feel about (goals)?” And auditor can tell pc so. The meter does it all.
On the second read the auditor lightly crosses out all goals that get no response or marks in the amount each goal now falls.
The auditor does a third read of only those goals that fall on the second reading and marks down how much they fell by a division figure and crosses out all those goals that now no longer fall.
By this time the list will be getting pretty short. Goals keep going nul. They blow, in other words.
The auditor now does end rudiments, picks up any PTPs and ARC breaks and gives the pc a short break and copies off only those goals that still fell on a new sheet of paper.
The auditor now returns the pc to session, runs beginning rudiments and goes over this new short list noting divisions of fall for each goal on it.
It is probable that these remaining goals are all the same goal or are opposite goals (if one can’t do one, he does the other sort of thing).
Once more the auditor writes down the divisions of fall as he goes over the list again with the pc.
More of these goals can be expected to fall out and go nul.
The preliminary goal now becomes unmistakable as having the consistent largest fall.
The pc may suddenly re-define this goal with great interest. That is fine. Note the re-definition or re-definitions as such. Re-check the last list and take the greatest consistent fall. Take the wording of the goal that falls most.
The auditor now has the principal goal. He writes it on a new piece of paper and puts the date of the assessment on it.
The auditor now starts his search for a terminal with considerable attention to what the pc says it is and finally finds one that falls as much as or more than the goal fell and that continues to fall.
The auditor now finds the Pre-Hav level of this terminal and its command and, noting all this on the new sheet, saving all papers in the pc record, goes to the D of P for a re-check.
This goal will always fall. This level will always fall. This command will always fall. Each right up to the instant the pc starts to get audited.
Most goals, all off-beat terminals, any incorrect level goes nul on the two-way comm incident to assessment. Only the goal, terminal, level that have to be audited remain.