There are no additives permitted on the Auditing Comm Cycle.

Example: Getting the pc to state the problem after the pc has said what the problem is.

Example: Asking a pc if that is the answer.

The ease with which you can handle a communication cycle depends on your ability to observe what the pc is doing.

Example: Telling pc “it didn’t react” on the meter.

We have to add to the simplicity of the communication cycle obnosis (observation of the obvious).

Example: Querying the answer.

Your inspection of what you are doing should have ended with your training. Thereafter it should be taken up exclusively with the observation of what the pc is doing or is not doing.

This is the worst kind of auditing.

Your handling of a communication cycle ought to be so instinctive and so good that you're never worried about what you do now.

Processes run best muzzled. By muzzled is meant using only TR 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4 by the text. A pc’s results will go to hell on an additive comm cycle.

The time for you to get all this fixed up is in training. If you know your communication cycle is good you haven't any longer got to be upset about whether you're doing it right or not. You know yours is good, so you don't worry about it any more.

There are a hundred thousand tricks that could be added to the Auditing Comm Cycle. every one of them is a goof. The only time you ever ask for a repeat is when you couldn’t hear it.

In actual auditing, the communication cycle that you watch is the pc's. Your business is the communication cycle and responses of the pc.

Since 1950, I’ve known that all auditors talk too much in a session. The maximum talk is the standard model session and the TR 0 to 4 Auditing Comm Cycle only.

This is what makes the auditor who can crack any case and when absent you have an auditor who couldn't crack an egg if he stepped on it.

It is a serious matter to get a pc to “clarify his answer”. It is in fact an Ethics matter and if done habitually is a Suppressive Act, for it will wipe out all gains.

This is the difference, it's whether or not this auditor can observe the communication cycle of the pc and repair its various lapses.

There are mannerism additives also.

It's so simple.

Example: Waiting for the pc to look at you before you give the next command. (Pcs who won’t look at you are ARC Broken. You don’t then twist this to mean the pc has to look at you before you give the next command.)

It simply consists of asking a question that the pc can answer, and then observing that the pc answers it, and when the pc has answered it, observing that the pc has completed the answer to it and is through answering it. Then give him the acknowledgement. Then give him something else to do. You can ask the same question or you can ask another question.

Example: A lifted eyebrow at an answer.

Asking the pc a question he can answer involves clearing the auditing command. You also ask it of the pc so that the pc can hear it and knows what he's being asked.

Example: A questioning sort of ack.

When the pc answers the question be bright enough to know that the pc is answering that question and not some other question.

The Whole Message is good auditing occurs when the comm cycle alone is used and is muzzled.

You have to develop a sensitivity – when did the pc finish answering what you've asked. You can tell when the pc has finished. It's a piece of knowingness. He looks like he's finished and he feels like he's finished. It's part sense; it's part his vocal intonation; but it's an instinct that you develop. You know he's finished.

Additives on the Auditing Comm Cycle are any action, statement, question or expression given in addition to TRs 0-4.

Then knowing he's finished answering you tell him he's finished with an acknowledgement, OK, Good, etc. It's like pointing out the by-passed charge to the pc. Like – "You have now found and located the by-passed charge in answer to the question and you have said it. " That's the magic of acknowledgement.

They are Gross Auditing Errors.

If you don't have that sensitivity for when the pc is finished answering – he answers, gets nothing from you, you sit there and look at him, his social machinery goes into action, he gets onto self auditing and you get no TA action.

And should be regarded as such.

The degree of stop you put on your acknowledgement is also your good sense because you can acknowledge a pc so hard that you finish the session right there.

Auditors who add to the Auditing Comm Cycle never make Releases.

It's all very well to do this sort of thing in training and it's forgivable, but not in an auditing session.

So, that’s Suppressive.

Get your own communication cycle sufficiently well repaired that you don't have to worry about it after training.

Don’t do it!