One does not tell the pc anything about the meter or its reads ever, except to indicate an F/N.

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

Steering a pc with "That – That – That" on something reading is allowable. But that isn’t putting attention on the meter but on his bank.

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

Definition of "In Session" is "Pc interested in own case and willing to talk to the auditor".

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.

Saying "That reads", "That didn’t read", "That blew down" is illegal. It is no substitute for TR 2. It violates the In Session definition by putting pc’s attention on the meter and can make him very unwilling to talk to the auditor!

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 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.

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.

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

It's so simple.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.