6506C29 SHSpec-64 The Well-Rounded Auditor MSH audited LRH to first-stage release on 24Feb63. They went ahead. He went keyed-out OT. Then he did more research and plowed himself into the R6 bank. Then he developed power processes. Power processes were totally predicted, not empirical. "There they should be, ... and there they were." LRH ran the power processes solo. When he got to the end, all that was there was beginning of track and the R6 bank. He backed off and looked for processes that would enable someone to have an ability back. He got third stage release (Va). [See HCOB 28Jun65 "Releases, Different Kinds", HCOB 12Jul65 "States of Being Attained by Processing", HCOB 5Aug65 "Release Stages", and pp. 733-738, below.] You can run it too far: into the bank, i.e. into R6EW. But now you are at the correct end of A third stage release can go into and out of the R6 bank at will. He is also able to have selective abilities. [This probably made Class VI easier.] We are getting an interesting reaction from orgs: "Why are you sending us a Class VII [Note: At this point, a Class VII is a power auditor.]? We're releasing all the people we want on 0, I, and II." The differences between the stages of release are basically differences of stability. The fellow has been gotten to a state where he can postulate, when he is released. At Level IV, a person can remain a keyed-out clear until he makes a postulate wrong-way-to and keys himself in again, and the R6 bank kicks him in the teeth. A power release is more stable. We still don't get a keyed-out OT at will, although it does occur sometimes, during power processing. It is easy to overrun a first stage release. We have cleared many people, by the Book One definition of "clear", and then overrun them, because the auditor didn't recognize a floating needle. After that, the PC could get very ARC breaky. All that could be done with a PC like this is to run him on power and bring him to a higher degree of stability. Power can also be overrun. If you overrun power and then audit someone on ordinary processes within power processing, you would really be in trouble, because where is only one thing there to hack at, and that's the H6 bank. You could audit some selective abilities with power plus -- run him up to third stage release, playing tag with the R6 bank -- then go on to audit R6. It is highly unlikely that a person will make clear, unless he has been released on power. The route through the bank is too hard, when it lies across an engram that will revivify. You are sitting in an engram, trying to run R6, and it won't as-is properly. That is the trouble with it. It is interesting to watch raw meat on power. They don't know about the R6 bank. They feel wonderful and full of awe, because they don't know what the Hell happened or what is going on, after being run on power processes. Technical advances are out of this world, administratively. R6 and power look very simple and elementary. The trick in instructing Class VII [Note: Class VII is now power auditing] is to get the simplicity of the processes and procedures duplicated, when the students are used to complexity. Confusion has to blow off. You run power processes muzzled. The study materials have more to them than would at first appear to be the case. The evaluation of importances is one area. For instance a darkroom worker who works for LRH on weekends knows lots of tricks, but he doesn't know fundamental importances. LRH spotted the similarity to new auditors who aren't fully trained in fundamentals. They want tricks and short-cuts, all of which are interesting, but unimportant. It isn't the tricks that get anyone anywhere. That is what psychiatry and psychology do. They collect tricks like stamp collectors, but they have no effective standard basic tech. "I have never heard one of them utter one essential piece of information that would have led to the resolution of a case. Fantastic hors d'oeuvres; no main course." So the study phenomenon is "There's the fellow who knows it and can do it, and the there's the fellow who knows all the tricks and can't do it." It is out evaluation of importances. You can take a basically sound piece of data, e.g., that a PC who never looks at the auditor or who slews around to sit sideways in the chair is ARC broken, and twist it to something like, "Never acknowledge a PC until he looks at you." If you did this on power, the PC would go "round the bend. He'd go on automatic. There is mainline information, and then there are tidbits. An auditor in training should differentiate between: 1. Mainline data, which is very senior. 2. Data you should know to apply the senior data. 3. "Parsley" data: data that, if you use it, it will make you look very clever. Nice data, but of no great value. When someone like LRH shifts a senior datum, people go adrift. For instance "Audit the PC in front of you," was senior, before grades and organization. An org auditor doesn't audit the PC in front of him at all. The auditor now audits the process. If he sees BI's or runs into trouble, he sends the PC to review. There is a policy letter now, with all the things on it that could be wrong with the PC [HCOPL 7Apr70RA "Green Form"]. It is asking too much to expect the auditor to pick up the right one in session, with no form, out of 44 possibilities, especially when the PC may have overts on that auditor. The PC should be repaired by some other auditor. The auditor may be part of what is wrong. Hence the PC needs another auditor. Review auditors must be experts in assessment. They pick up any read and straighten out whatever needs to be fixed. Whatever the problem is, it is not standard tech that is the problem. The review auditor is in a different division [Qual]. The D of P [apparently covers also the CS post at this time] is forbidden ever to interview a PC or talk to an auditor about a PC. Only what can be statisticized is the concern of the D of P: total TA, process run, hours in session, etc. If the auditor is trying to talk to the D of P about cases, he gets a job endangerment chit. If a PC doesn't gain in processing, there are reasons why. But knowing little tricks won't tell you what they are. You can't put beings together again with a cute little trick. The auditor's job is to audit standard processes on the PC, with a standard comm cycle, on a standard gradation program. The D of P does standard D of P'ing. He goes over the session and checks TA for the session. He picks up the next folder. The PC's goal is "Not to have too much trouble in this session." The total TA was 27 divs for a 2 1/2 hour session. The PC is not in trouble -- continue the process. Next folder: no goals or gains. PC restive; didn't want to run any processes. How many hours were wasted here? All morning and all afternoon. The PC was ARC broken through it all. Auditor to ethics and PC to review. Handled in this way, cases keep winning. If the PC rollercoasters, he goes to review, then to the examiner, then to ethics. If the PC can't spot the SP, ethics just keeps working it over. There is someone who uses generalities that keep the PC from spotting him. If you get the right one, the PTS's face lights like a Christmas tree. If you get the wrong one, it won't, and it is like indicating the wrong BPC. The condition doesn't change. That is the only time ethics lays an egg. When the PTS situation is handled, the PC goes back to the HGC, and the auditor takes up from where he left off. "Ethical standard matches case level." Ethics has as a purpose making people better, not punishing people. Suppose the Org Exec Sec sees declining stats in the HGC -- processing is not as successful as before. Now is the time to look at all the review chits. He finds that auditing cycles are out on several auditors. He tells the D of P. The D of P sends these auditors for special training and gets their comm cycle in. Lower classed auditors have lower ethical standards. To be an excellent review auditor, you must be a crackerjack assesser, be able to make the E-meter sit up and sing, know the processes called for on the Green Form, be able to audit routine auditing on the grades, be able to CS any folder, know when to send a PC to review and when to review auditors, know when a process is flat, know what GI's and BI's can be read from a folder, know what process should be run next, know what is good TA and poor TA, and be a cryptographer, so you don't get misunderstoods. You should know which auditor to assign to which PC. Your auditors are not all releases, and you know that there are quirks that make auditor A audit poorly with certain PCs. If you drop out one of those skills, you are that much less a complete auditor. There is no review for power processing, so power processing is done in review, with two Class VII's, CS'ing each other. An auditor in training is not being trained as a one-man-band. He gets tired and quits auditing, if he tries. But he should be able to do the above actions, so that he understands what is happening when he audits. You only change the standard pattern of the session when the PC gets non-standard. The PC goes to review when he is a flat ball-bearing. The auditor should know how to do a Green Form, not because he is going to do one in standard session, but because, as the org grows, more review auditors will be needed. The effects of out-tech are slower to appear in the HGC (maybe six months) than in the academy (a few days). People are always fighting to own this planet. That's silly! Why don't they just go ahead and own it, as we are doing?