For multiple situation evaluations, the following is the correct format to use in the final evaluation write-up:

• POLICY:

"Somebody has evaluators on a 'whole org' kick where the evaluation must handle the whole org. Evidence of this is 'the Why' lately was defined as something that handled all outpoints. The initial step of the stat analysis to find the area and then find its situation and its Why is not being done. Hence individual org situations do not get spotted or evaluated and evaluations take forever."

(One of the org evaluations submitted to LRH was returned with the following note.) "This evaluation has almost no outpoints in it. Almost every paragraph is a situation requiring evaluation.

"A situation is something that affects stats or survival of the org.

"An outpoint is something that contributes to a situation and should not be in the situation area.

"A Why is the real basic reason for the situation which, being found, opens the door to handling.

"Evaluators who are trying to embrace the whole org of world in one evaluation are missing all the real situations or landing only in Division Seven."

(The following is a despatch written by LRH in May 1976 regarding an earlier evaluation done on an org which LRH was evaluating at the time.)

"That evaluation, that was to pull in the CO, had one of these 'philosophical Whys,' 'The CO and HCO have prevented execs from being made by omitting actions that would accomplish this (i.e. choosing suitable ones, hatting, training and appren­ticing them) which has led to blows and 19th century solution of transfers and removals and eventually no execs at all.' That's all fine but you can ask of it, 'How come they're doing that? so it couldn't be a bottom level Why. Anytime you can ask a 'How come? you haven't got a Why, you have a situation.

"Just an off-the-cuff Why better than that would be 'Day and Foundation staff are the same, allowing no time to hat and train' or another, 'There is no HCO staff' or another 'Only a handful make the GI and the rest of the org is considered superfluous'-yet none of these are the Why either as you can also again ask 'How come? And the org is delivering.

"So this is what I am working on now. The new type of evaluation would use telex lines and FRs to ask a lot of questions after one had found the real situation. It would go: Find the situation area from stats, find the situation from data files, get some sort of a Why (that will now become the situation) and burn the telex lines or send a mission from the FOLO to find out how come that situation. You would then get the real Why and could do a program. This would make evaluations pretty real!"

• POLICY:

The above format is repeated for as many situations as were evaluated.

Then:

• 1. (First target)

The program targets to specifically handle the Whys of each situation should be divided up as follows:

• 4. (Or whatever number, in sequence, after any beginning general targets) Make up a list....

• 19. (Or whatever number, in sequence, following the Sit One targets) See that....

One does this for as many situations as were evaluated.

When writing and issuing a set of program orders or mission orders separate to the eval itself, the usual program or mission order format is used, except the operating targets get divided up as shown above.