We, for some time now, have been moving in spheres of higher level auditing which reached deeper into a case than old processes could repair. The definition of a master process would be one which ran out all other processes and processing. We now have such processes.
As there have been several Routines run on various cases, and as there is a new way of Sec Checking called Prepchecking, it is time I issued data on case repair in case any of these routines were done wrong by auditors or left unflat.
The best remedy for any bracket process on problems is to flatten the exact process that was run and left unflat.
The auditor should explore this and get the exact version.
Only the exact problems process that was left unflat will flatten that problems process.
Unflat Sec Checking, where material was overlooked, is best remedied by a combination of CCHs and Prepchecking, using the exact Sec Check form originally left unflat and covering it completely again, but using HCO Bulletin of May l0, 1962 which combines Sec Checking and Prepchecking. This will get off all the rough edges that are left over from Sec Checking only. It is quite revealing how much auditors left untouched during the Sec Checking days. And how many missed withholds were generated.
Pcs who give an appearance of blowing while being run on CCHs or who are nattery to their auditors are best run on the CCHs in complete Model Session form, with full beginning and end rudiments on the meter. The body of the session is, of course, run without a meter when Model Session is used on the CCHs.
Never ask the pc if you’ve missed a withhold on him or her with the pc off a meter. Don’t ask it socially either. You can lose more friends that way!
When a pc has been getting a lot of Prepchecking from one or several auditors and the pc has begun to look withdrawn or misemotional in life, a lot of What questions have been left unflat.
The best remedy, and the proper one, for this is to take all the pc’s Prepcheck auditors’ reports and, in session, test every What question from the earliest one ever asked for needle reaction.
If a What question reacts, no matter what it was, clean it up by the routinePrepchecking system until the original What question is nul, then ask for missed withholds in the session and go on to the next What question in the reports. Don’t vary the What questions you find in the reports. Just work the chain until you get the chain fully blown.
This cleaning up of every What question left not nul can do wonders for a pc. Some What questions will be found to be silly. Clean them up anyway.
If another auditor did it, ask, after a What question is nul, “In that session, did the auditor miss a withhold on you?” and clean it off the needle.
Where the CCHs have been done wrong or have been left unflat, just do more good CCHs with proper two way comm about Physical originations by the pc. The CCHs done right flatten CCHs done wrong.
Where SCS has been done wrong or left unflat, just do it right with two way comm about physical originations by the pc and it should come right.
In one case SCS was never flattened on Start because the pc considered the body already started and thus the pc could never execute the command. The remedy was to flatten Stop much better.
Old Opening Procedure By Duplication has been left unflat on a lot of Scientologists.
One way is to just flatten it.
Another way is to add it to the CCHs as a fifth CCH in sequence and run it only until it ceases to produce change and then go to CCH l. However, I think it’s best just to grind it flat, as it was and is a test of endurance in duplication unlike the CCHs.
If left unflat just ignore. There are things you can do with it such as to add want, not want, oppose, not oppose to the level and list four lines with You or Your as the terminal.
Example: Original level found was “blame”. Who or what would want to blame you?
Who or what would oppose blaming you?
Who or what would not oppose blaming you?
Who or what would not want to blame you?
Only if a worsening of case was directly traceable to having had a Pre-Hav level run would one recover that level and treat it as above.
The listing would have to be complete on every one of the four lists and it would be done as in Routine 3GA, Information Letter of May l0, 1962.
As the auditor might not have had the right level at the time, repairing Routine 2 should be done only after careful review and probably not even then.
The original Routine 3 began with finding the pc’s goal. This also applies to Routine 3A and 3D.
All these are repaired the same way.
You ignore everything but the goal. You skip the terminal or oppterm or the modifier or oppgoal. You use only the goal. Choose the First Goal Ever Found. The FIRST, FIRST, FIRST, no matter who found it or where.
All invalidations, suppressions and missed W/Hs on:
are carefully picked up. The goal itself is worked over hardest. When the goal is clean, it is carefully checked against the rest of the goals list.
If the goal checks out, you then use the current goals routine on it (Routine 3GA at this time of writing) and go on from there.
If the goal does not check out even after the most careful cleaning up of its invalidations, suppressions or missed withholds, add to the goals list and start in to find the right goal and then use it in the current routine and continue with that routine.
This repair is highly specific, is very important, and will have to be done on every person on whom a goal was ever located.
THIS INCLUDES ALL CLEARS.
There is no other method of salvage.
If more than one goal was found, take the first and treat it as given here, then take the second goal ever found, clean it up and so forth.
Because auditors had so much trouble getting lists completed, Routine 3D Criss Cross is the most important to patch up.
In fact, many cases run on it will not progress on a current Goals Routine until 3D Criss Cross is cleaned up.
The process was powerful and only cleans itself up. But, cleaned up, it gives fantastic case resurgences.
Take all the items found and scrap them.
Take a list of the lines from which the items came, written in the sequence they were used. With the pc on a meter in Model Session, query the pc for his or her reactions on each line at the time it was done.
Take the earliest line source that was done on the pc that gave the pc sensation, pain, heat or cold. In other words, the earliest line source that produced somatics. It must be the earliest. In some cases a goal was the earliest thing from which a list was taken but the listing of a goal, if it was not productive of somatics, can be left, just as any other line source can be left alone on repair — no somatics, neglect the line.
Now comes the only tricky part. Convert the line source into four line sources by entering into its wording want, oppose, not oppose, not want, in that order. These four lines must include the original source line that was listed.
Now list the three hitherto unlisted lines up until they are in even length with the original line done and then, as in Routine 3GA, keep the four abreast of each other. List all TA action out of all lines. Use 3GA tests to find this out.
When no charge of any kind is left, skip the lot. No need, so far as I know at this writing, to nul them as this is just a repair job. When all lines that were formerly active (had somatics during listing) are so repaired, get on with the current Routine 3 Process. (At this writing, Routine 3GA.)
The case gain you’ll get on the pc from this alone will be startling — providing the four lines you list from any single 3DXX source formerly used are now complete.
Note: If pc confused as to which was it, the lines probably aren’t complete. Pull missed withholds on assessments, listing, items and get pc to list further.
Note: Unless you do this repair well, the case may bog when you try to get agoal.
Note: In case you missed it, you throw away all items ever found before doinganything else and you oppterm no items.
On Pre-Hav levels used for 3DXX see Routine 2 above. For flow lines do the expansion with want, oppose, not oppose, and not want as contained herein.
Repair of earlier auditing than those processes specifically mentioned here is best done by Prepchecking combined with CCHs. The best Zero question for such repair is any one of those calculated to unearth missed withholds.
A general process on missed withholds, repetitive, will be the subject of another HCO Bulletin and it is permissible to use this to repair all earlier sessions in which the above-mentioned routines were not run.
In general repair you can get nice gains by Prepchecking all rudiments, beginning and end, in a general way. You will be amazed how many have been out on old pcs. I found one who had not answered even one havingness command although auditors had given the pc thousands. That’s thousands of failures to answer the auditing command — and no havingness worked on this pc until I’d discovered and remedied this.
Case repair is a task for a skilled auditor. No case will repair if it continues to be audited badly.
If you want to be sure you can repair cases — and audit them — take an Academy retread or apply for Saint Hill — or both.