These are problems in flows.

There are TWO methods of taking a TA down that is HIGH. 4.0 is a high TA.

They exist with or without intention.

One is the routine process of “What has been overrun?”, HCOB 17 Sept ‘68. It is not used as a rudiment. It is for chronic high TAs.

One can add "intentional" or "unintentional" to the definitions.

There is another one also. It is quite different and is run differently. It is not a listing process.

An Overt – An act by the person or individual leading to the injury, reduction or degradation of another, others or their beingness, persons, possessions, associations or dynamics.

It is the simple question “Has anything been overrun?”

A Motivator is an act received by the person or individual causing injury, reduction or degradation of his beingness, person, associations or dynamics.

It is used at session start or after a break when the TA is found to have risen mysteriously to 4.0 or above.

An overt of omission – a failure to act resulting in the injury, reduction or degradation of another or others or their beingness, persons, possessions or dynamics.

It requires a clever auditor. First, he notices the TA is at 4.0. Then he gets the pc to answer “Has anything been overrun?” If the pc says something and the TA comes down, that’s it. The TA may only come down to 3.5. But that’s it.

A motivator is called a "motivator" because it tends to prompt an overt. It gives a person a motive or reason or justification for an overt.

Then one puts in a rud. Unless of course the answer to “Has anything been O/R?” was “Ruds” or “Asking for ARC Brks”. One would then indicate this as BPC and the TA should come on down.

When a person commits an overt or overt of omission with no motivator he tends to believe or pretends that he has received a motivator which does not in fact exist. This is a False Motivator.

This action is just getting the TA down so one can audit.

Beings suffering from this are said to have "motivator hunger" and are often aggrieved over nothing.

Don’t expect ruds to pull down a 4.0 TA.

Cases which "cave in hard" suffer from false motivators and resolve on being asked for overts done for no reason.

And NEVER start a main action with the TA high expecting the main action will get it down. The main action hasn’t got it up.

Cases which do not resolve on actual motivators have overts that have to be handled.

Overrun of the main action or of any action past F/N will cause the TA to rise. One knows why that is and simply indicates the by-pass of an F/N and down comes the TA.

There is also the case with False Overts. The person has been hit hard for no reason. So they dream up reasons they were hit.

Calling for “Has anything been overrun?” is VERY simple. You don’t ask “How many times, etc.” You just get it spotted and down comes the TA.

Cases that go into imaginary cause (imagining they do or cause things bad or good) are suffering from false overt. They resolve on "When were you hit (punished, hurt, etc.) for no reason?"

If the pc says something in answer and the TA doesn’t come down, the auditor says, “No”. The pc searches about and gives another. If it’s not that the auditor says “No”. The pc says something else and down comes the TA and the auditor says, “Good, that’s the overrun.” And then the auditor carries on with his session actions.

The commonest cause of a TA flying up in a break is the process went F/N out of session and the intention of the auditor to continue it sends it up.

Note a Real HOT Auditor who really knows his basics can float a needle on this with one shot.

[In the original issue, the second sentence of the second paragraph was: “It is a formal listing process.” This has been deleted per HCO B 10 December 1968, Correction, which also states, “ ‘What has been overrun?’ is used to handle the chronically high TA and is run as per HCO B Sept 17, 1968, Overrun Process.” — LRH. The only other text in HCO B 10 December 1968 adds “Class IV” to the distribution of both the above and HCO B 17 September 1968.]