If a pc says something and the auditor fails to understand what the pc said or meant, the correct response is:

"I did not (hear you) (understand what was said) (get that last). "

To do anything else is not only bad form, it can amount to a heavy ARC Break.

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

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

To say "You did not speak loud enough _____" or any other use of "you" is an invalidation.

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.

The pc is also thrown out of session by having responsibility hung on him or her.

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

The Auditor is responsible for the session. Therefore the auditor has to assume responsibility for all comm breakdowns in it.

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.

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

Far more serious than Invalidation above, is the accidental evaluation which may occur when the auditor repeats what the pc said.

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.

Never repeat anything a pc says after him, no matter why.

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

Repeating not only does not show the pc you heard but makes him feel you're a circuit.

It's so simple.

The highest advance of 19th Century Psychology was a machine to drive people crazy. All it did was repeat after the person everything the person said.

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.

Children also do this to annoy.

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.

But that isn't the main reason you do not repeat what the pc said after the pc. If you say it wrong the pc is thrown into heavy protest. The pc must correct the wrongness and hangs up right there. It may take an hour to dig the pc out of it.

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

Further, don't gesture to find out. To say, pointing, "You mean this item, then," is not only an evaluation but a nearly hypnotic command, and the pc feels he must reject very strongly.

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.

Don't tell the pc what the pc said and don't gesture to find what the pc meant.

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.

Just get the pc to say it again or get the pc to point it out again. That's the correct action.

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.

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.

Also, do not shove things at a pc or throw things to a pc. Don't gesture toward a pc. It drives in anchor points and makes the pc reject the auditor.

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

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

The reason a person who Rock Slams on Scientology or auditors or the like can't audit well is that they are wary of a pc and feel they must repeat after the pc, correct the pc or gesture toward the pc.

But Rock Slammer or not, any new auditor may fall into these bad habits and they should be broken fast.

A very high percentage of ARC Breaks occur because of a failure to understand the pc.

Don't prove you didn't with gestures or erroneous repeats.

Just audit, please.