As you can see, my approach is to improve quality of training, cramming and delivery.

Such a list is then handled from earliest forward by

Please help me out in getting this in.

A) Completing the bogged Flow and

B) Completing the missing Flow.

[This HCO B is added to by HCO B 21 April 1971-1R, Addition of 13 January 1975, Revised 22 February 1975, C/S Series 36RB-1R, Quadruple Dianetics-Dangers of]

When doing additional Flows on earlier items or processes, one must also check or rehab those Flows, marked as run to EP in the worksheets.

If this is overdone, it will raise the TA by overrun.

So if one had a case that had single Dianetics and was later run on Triple for new items (but the Singles now done into Triple) one would have to RUN FIRST the missing unrun Single F1 for flatness, then the missing flow or flows for the second item and then check its single flow for flatness, then for the 3rd, 4th, etc. items.

The rule is run the previously unrun one or ones first to get charge off, then verify or run the ones listed as run already.

Then one would do the same for the next item. Run the previously unrun Flow or Flows and then verify or run those listed as already run to be sure they F/N. Of course, one would repair an obviously bogged Flow as the first action on any item.

All items, in chronological sequence, would have to be run or rehabbed.

One rehabs a Dianetic Chain that, according to a previous worksheet, erased by saying, „According to session records (Flow direction) (item) erased. “ That’s all. One does not say, „Did the chain giving others a headache erase?“ One does not run it again to find out. One does not run a single command „to see if it F/Ns again. “ One can say, „Do you agree that the chain ‘giving another a headache’ erased?“ But the more you ask the pc to look for an erased chain the more messed up things will get. It isn’t there! But the Auditor, by his action, can imply that it should be there or might be there. A totally wrong approach would be, „Look around your bank and see if what isn’t there anymore isn’t there. “

Dianetics is NOT Scientology. A Dianetic Chain is NOT a release. If you try to use Scientology rehab tech on a Dianetic Chain, you have had it. It isn’t a „release“ (which is a Key-Out.) A Dianetic Chain is an erasure. You can’t rehab erasures with „How many times?“ etc.

The test of this is the doing. If you try to use Scn rehab on Dianetic Chains, the pc MIGHT TRY TO FIND SOMETHING. This causes him to key in other unrun or similar items. Sometimes when he has „run them“ again, he finds they are being overrun or run twice and has to repair them by finding this out. The pc sometimes doesn’t know until he actually starts to run them. Then he finds they are already run. The clue to this is a climbing TA. If the TA goes up, get off that Flow and do an L3B.

Example: Pc at first thinks „Pain in Shoulder“ F2 was never run and you cannot find it anywhere in his folders, starts to run it. TA goes up. Auditor must pull him off of it and find out if it is being run twice and rehab it to F/N using an L3B.

The moral in all these reruns is don’t firefight – keep an L3B handy and use it.

The question will come up, do we triple Narrative items or Multiple somatic items?

The test is: Did the Flows already run F/N when they were originally run? If they did, include them. If they didn’t run, exclude them. But on such goofed items one handles the goof with L3B in the chronological sequence of the Flow table.

This does not mean you omit everything that didn’t run.

Many times an FES or Flow Chart will give a flubbed chain and then fall to note it was repaired in the next session.

A C/S and Auditor would have been pretty irresponsible to just go on auditing past flubbed chains.

The only safe way to handle some previously flubbed chain is to:

Verify in the folder if it was repaired.

If still unrepaired, assess the first 28 questions of L3B on it and handle according to the L3B. This means one has to find out if they by-passed the F/N, went too early, jumped the chain, etc. An L3B assessed on that action will give the answer. It is easy to make these old flubbed chains F/N unless you work at it too hard. Usually the reason they didn’t is visible on the old worksheets. The Auditor forgot to ask for an earlier beginning or by-passed the F/N or tried to run it twice, forgetting he’d run it before. Corny errors.

Using the L3B (HCOB 11 Apr 71) is a Dianetic action. A Scientology Auditor erroneously can try to use it as a 2WC type of list. If a chain needed one more ABCD, then 2WC on it with no ABCD is not going to complete it.

L3B has its own direction. Questions not marked with directions are used to indicate the fact to the pc. This can amount to 2WC as the pc chews it over and may need to go earlier similar. But the L3B where marked is handled by Dianetic actions. Look over the list and its directions for each question and you will see that some are given directions that are not 2WC.

The action of a quarrel between an Auditor and a pc is called a firefight.

Restimulating earlier unrun engrams or overrunning chains upset a pc. The best action, as soon as the pc is disturbed about the chain, is to do an L3B fast and handle what reads per the L3B directions.

The wrong way is to argue or try to go on.

The pc does not know what it is. He just feels awful. He tries to guess. He will ARC Break or get sad if the Auditor continues.

The correct action is an L3B.

L1C is not of great use in a Dianetic ARC Break. L3B is!

A Scientology session would be handled with some other list (L1C, L4B, etc.) A Dianetic session is handled with L3B.

Assess the first 28 questions and handle. If the pc remains ARC broken or the chain is unhandled, one does the whole L3B, not just 1-28. If still unhandled reassess L3B 1-28 etc.

You never prepcheck while doing Dianetics. This mushes engrams.

In doing a Flow Table, you often find that the same or a similar item has been run in the past. Sometimes you find that a previous attempt to run the item a second or third time has resulted in an ARC Break, the reason for which was never detected.

The right action is to note the session date it was first run and just tell the pc, „Feeling surprised was run three times. On (date first erased) it was erased. When later run it was overrun. “ This tends to blow the later charge laid in by trying to run the same item again. If not completely handled, work over the item with an L3B.

It sounds strange that erased chains can be overrun but it is true. What happens is that pcs try to cooperate and put something there, or pull in other chains and try to run them run them instead.

When doing Dianetics on Clears and OTs (and a very few others) it may be found that many chains are now missing or are just copies of the original. Don’t be disturbed. Pc says they’re gone now, they’re gone. Just F/N the fact and carry on with the next Flow or item.

Any trouble a C/S is running into comes from the factors of TRs, metering, Code and incomplete or false auditor reports.

If, when I (LRH) am C/Sing, I ever find an Auditor has omitted key session actions or has falsified a report, I order that Auditor not to cramming but a full retrain, HDC right on up.

A C/S does not see these points. He can get the pc asked what the Auditor is doing or did. He can get sessions monitored. This helps him fill this gap in his data.

It’s what isn’t in the auditors report that is often the trouble. Auditors omit what they said, omit the firefight, omit session alter-is in their worksheets.

All this sticks the C/S’s neck out for the axe of failure.

So particularly in Dianetics, Int/Ext and other such actions a C/S has to act to obtain confidence in the Auditor’s TRs, metering, Code use and accurate work sheets.

TR Zero exists so an Auditor is not ducking the session, but can sit there, relaxed, doing his job.

TR One must be done so the pc can hear and understand the Auditor (without blowing the pc’s head off, either.)

TR Two must be done so that the pc gets acknowledged. This can be so corrupted that the Auditor doesn’t ack at all, but gives the pc meter reads! Instead of acks! Or keeps saying, „I didn’t understand you,“ etc.

TR Three basically exists so that the Auditor would continue to give the pc commands and not squirrel off or pack up with total silence.

TR Four exists so that the pc’s origins are accepted and not Qed and Aed with or invalidated.

And surprise, surprise, TRs are for use in the session itself, not just a drill. They are how one runs a session.

Metering can miss every F/N or give „F/Ns“ with high or low TA. And one never feeds meter data to the pc: „That read,“ „that didn’t read,“ „that blew down,“ just must not exist in session patter. „Thank you. That F/Ned“ is as far as an Auditor goes. And that’s the end of the cycle and he says so.

Floating needles can be overlooked by the Auditor. In Dianetics this fault is fatal.

Auditors Code must be in on all points, and particularly Invalidation. Pc says, „That’s so and so. “ An Auditor who says, „I’m sorry. You are wrong“ or any other invalidation is going to wreck a pc’s case. A full knowledge of the Auditors Code and actually applying it saves endless troubles. It is an auditing TOOL, not just a nice idea.

The flagrant – and I (LRH) do mean flagrant – errors found consisted of

(A) Not being able to run Precision Dianetics in the first place;

(B) Re-running already erased chains „to find if they were flat“;

(C) Out TRs to a wild extent;

(D) Refusing utterly to accept pc’s data;

(E) Faulty metering;

(F) Complete ignorance of the Auditors Code, notably committing the crime of invalidating the pc.

A thorough study of the case and an FES and program written and completed to handle the obvious bugs (such as flubbed Int, lists, etc.) per C/S Series 44R Addition, will get the pc flying and guarantee the results of Dianetics.

The results of straightening up and putting in all Flows on a pc are fantastic.

Getting in all Flows correctly gives all the latent gains the pc has been begging for.

So send to Cramming all C/Ses and Auditors who flub.

Program it right.

C/S it right.

Audit it right.