In HCO B 26 April 1971 Issue I, the definitions and conditions in an audited session are described.

The definition of In-Session also applies to Solo Auditing.

If the solo auditor is so all-thumbs with his papers, meters, platens that they distract him from his own bank he is not likely to as-is or cognite.

In the presence of rough TRs cognition’s do not occur.

Recently, on Flag, we have taken failed IIIs and put them back through a full heavy re-train on R6EW and then pushed them back up the line with good success.

Cognition’s are the milestones of case gain.

When a solo auditor is also a rabbit (runs from everything including his bank) he has no chance to overcome it if he is all thumbs with his tools.

Rough TRs, rough metering, Out Code and a distractive auditor then make no case gain.

Requiring arduous, perfect drills on Solo metering and auditing actions at R6EW level should occur before the pc sees any materials. He must first and foremost be a Solo Auditor, familiar with his meters and papers to such a degree that they do not in any way distract him.

When an auditor has smooth, usual TRs, does his metering expertly and without attracting the pc’s attention, when he follows the Auditor’s Code (particularly regarding Evaluation and Invalidation) and when he is interested, not interesting as an auditor, the pc cognites and makes case gains.

Only then can you add a bank to the scene.

Further, according to the axioms, a bank straightens out by as-ising its content. If the pc’s attention is distracted to the auditor and meter his attention is not on his bank so As-Ising cannot occur.

A poor solo auditor does not cognite as his attention is on the tools not his bank.

The definition of In Session is interested in own case and willing to talk to the auditor. When this definition describes the session in progress, then of course the pc will be able to as-is and will cognite.

Where the Solo auditor fails, he has not learned his tools. The remedy is to make him learn them.

By The Original Thesis, the auditor plus the pc is greater than the pc’s bank. When the auditor plus the bank are both overwhelming the pc then the bank seems greater than the pc. It is this situation which gives a pc a low Tone Arm.

The bridge between II and III is sometimes a hard one. It may be that an HDC course is vital before the pre- can make this bridge.

An auditor who can’t be heard, doesn’t ack, doesn’t give the pc the next command, fails to handle origins simply has out-TRs.

The Solo Auditor who „attests” rather than confront his bank probably never learned to use his auditing tools in the first place. Then, adding the bank as something to confront results in confusion.

The auditor who is trying to be interesting to the pc, who over-acks, who laughs loudly, is putting the pc’s attention onto himself. So the pc’s attention, not being on his bank, doesn’t as-is or cognite.

Cognition’s in Solo Auditing depend upon the ability to use the tools of auditing so well, they serve no distraction in Solo Session.

The auditor whose metering by-passes F/Ns or calls F/Ns at wrong points, or who tells the pc „That reads” „That blew down” etc., or who any other way uses the meter distractingly (the pc knows when he is being under or over run and knows when he is being mismetered), is of course violating the definition of In-Session. The pc’s attention goes to the meter, not his bank, so he doesn’t as-is or cognite.

Auditor Invalidation and Evaluation is just plain villainy. It interferes with pc cognition’s. Other Code breaks are similarly distractive.

If you understand the exact definition of In-Session, if you understand the pc’s necessity to have his attention on his bank so as to as-is it and work out what is really going on in a session that brings about a cognition (as-ising aberration with a realization about life), you will then be able to spot all the things in TRs, metering and the Code that would prevent case gain.

Once you see that out-TRs, mis-metering and Code breaks would prevent the In-Session definition you will see what would impede a pc from As-Ising and Cogniting

When you have this figured out you will then be able to see clearly what are in-TRs, correct metering and correct code application.

There can be an infinity of wrongnesses. There are only a few rightnesses.

Recognition of Right TRs, right Metering and right Code use depend only on

(a) Understanding the principles in this HCOB, and

(b) Their practice so as to establish habit.

This mastered, one’s pcs will get cognition’s and case gain and swear by „their auditor”!