Русская версия

Search document title:
Content search 2 (exact):
ENGLISH DOCS FOR THIS DATE- Checking Questions on Grades Processes - B800623 | Сравнить
- Checking Questions on Grades Processes - B800623R82 | Сравнить
- Checking Questions on Grades Processes - B800623RA83 | Сравнить

RUSSIAN DOCS FOR THIS DATE- Проверка Вопросов на Процессах Ступеней - Б800623 | Сравнить
- Проверка Вопросов на Процессах Ступени - Б800623R82 | Сравнить

CONTENTS CHECKING QUESTIONS ON GRADES PROCESSES “NO READS” Cохранить документ себе Скачать
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 23 JUNE 1980R
REVISED 25 FEBRUARY 1982
CANCELS THE ORIGINAL ISSUE
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 23 JUNE 1980RA
RE-REVISED 25 OCTOBER 1983
RemimeoRemimeo
All AuditorsAll Auditors
C/SesC/Ses
Academy LevelsAcademy Levels
TechTech/Qual
Qual

CHECKING QUESTIONS ON GRADES PROCESSES

CHECKING QUESTIONS ON GRADES PROCESSES

Refs:

Ref:

  • HCOB 12 June 70 C/S Series 2 PROGRAMING OF CASES
  • HCOB 12 Jun 70 C/S Series 2; PROGRAMMING OF CASES
  • HCO PL 17 June 70RB Rev. 25.10.83 KSW Series 5R TECHNICAL DEGRADES
  • HCO PL 17 Jun 70RA TECHNICAL DEGRADES
  • HCOB 19 Apr. 72 KSW Series 8 C/S Series 77 “QUICKIE” DEFINED
  • HCOB 19 Apr 72C/S Series 77; “QUICKIE” DEFINED
  • HCOB 3 Dec. 78 UNREADING FLOWS
  • HCOB27 May 70R UNREADING QUESTIONS AND ITEMS
  • HCOB 27 May 70R Rev. 3.12.78 UNREADING QUESTIONS AND ITEMS
  • HCOB 3 Dec 78 UNREADING FLOWS
  • HCOB 8 June 61 E-METER WATCHING
  • HCOB 30 Apr 79 RC/S Series 106R; Dn Clear Series 12; AUDITING THE DIANETIC CLEAR
  • HCOB 7 May 69 IV THE FIVE GAEs
  • (HCOB 23 Jun 80 was not written by myself and was not approved by me. It falsely stated that an auditor was not to check the processes of a Grade for a read before running that process. This was called to attention by Snr C/S Int.)
  • HCOB 22 Apr. 80 ASSESSMENT DRILLS
  • EACH GRADE PROCESS, THAT IS RUN ON A METER, MUST BE CHECKED FOR A READ BEFORE IT IS RUN AND IF NOT READING, IT IS NOT RUN AT THAT TIME.


    I believe that the HCOB in question, HCOB 23 Jun 80 has created an Out Tech situation of pcs being run on unreading processes on Grades, leading to PC protest, out of session-ness and a tendency on some auditors' parts to cease to expect a process EP! Though the issue was purported to be a handling of quickying, it gave rise to quickying.

    (The original version of HCOB 23 June 80 incorrectly stated that an auditor was not to check the processes of a grade for read before running them. That HCOB was then canceled on 25 Feb. 82 and it remains canceled. The person who had originally approved – and even taken part in writing – this incorrect and illegally issued HCOB later sought to cover these actions by “discovering the error,” attributing it to someone else, and “calling it to my attention.” With this re-revision, all earlier text written by others has simply been removed and further HCOB references have been added to the list above.)

    “NO READS”

    EACH GRADE PROCESS THAT IS RUN ON A METER MUST BE CHECKED FOR A READ BEFORE IT IS RUN, AND IF NOT READING, IT IS NOT RUN AT THAT TIME.

    A process or question or command can be suppressed or invalidated which would prevent a read and could cause a miss if these buttons were not gotten in.

    This rule applies to subjective grade processes. It does not apply to processes that are not run on a meter such as Objective Processes or assists (except for metered assist actions of a subjective nature).

    A process that has been started but left unflat (not taken to EP) may no longer read on the process question but would read on unflat? or incomplete?

    Actually, a process that “doesn’t read” stems from one of three sources: (a) the process is not charged; (b) the process is invalidated or suppressed; or (c) ruds are out in session.

    These rules apply to subjective grade processes; they do not apply to processes that are not run on a meter such as objective processes or assists (except for metered assist actions).

    Factually, pc interest also plays a part in this.

    It is a Gross Auditing Error to run an unreading Grade process on a pc; it is also a Gross Auditing Error for an auditor to miss reads on processes or questions and so not run them. A C/S seeing too many processes or questions said to be unreading should suspect that the auditor's metering is out and get it checked in Cramming. If found to be out, order a retread or retrain of the E-Meter Drills and put the auditor through the drills given in HCOB 22 Apr 80, ASSESSMENT DRILLS.

    I think quickying came from (1) auditors trying to push past the existing or persistent F/Ns or (2) auditors with TRs so poor that the pc was not in session. Nearly all grade processes and flows will read on pcs in that Grade Chart area unless the above two conditions are present.

    Actually, a process that “doesn't read” stems from three sources: (a) The process is not charged; (b) The process is invalidated or suppressed or (c) Ruds are out in session.

    One also doesn’t make a big production of checking, as it distracts the pc. There is a system, one of many, one can use. One can say “The next process is (state wording of the auditing question)” and see if it reads. This does not take more than a glance. If no read but, more likely, if it isn’t charged, an F/N or smoothly null needle, one hardly pauses and one adds “but are you interested in it?” Pc will consider it, and if not charged and pc in session, it will F/N or F/N more widely.

    Factually PC interest also plays a part in this.

    If charged, the pc would ordinarily put his attention on it and you’d get a fall or just a stopped F/N followed by a fall on the interest part of the question.

    I think quickying came from (1) Auditors trying to push past the existing or persistent F/Ns or (2) Auditors with TRs so poor that the PC was not in session. Nearly all grade processes and flows will read on PCs in that grade chart area unless the above two conditions are present.

    It takes pretty smooth auditing to do this and not miss. So if in doubt, one can again check the question. But never hound or harass a pc about it. Inexpert checking questions for read can result in a harassed pc and drive him out of session, so this auditing action, like any other, requires smooth auditing.

    One also doesn't make a big production of checking as it distracts the PC. There is a system, one of many, one can use. One can say, “the next process is (state wording of the auditing question)” and see if it reads. This does not take more than a glance. If no read but, more likely, if it isn't charged, an F/N or smoothly null needle, one hardly pauses and one adds “but are you interested in it?” PC will consider it and if not charged and PC in session, it will F/N or F/N more widely.

    L. RON HUBBARD
    Founder

    If charged, the PC would ordinarily put his attention on it and you'd get a fall or just a stopped F/N followed by a fall on the interest part of the question.

    LRH:rw.iw.gm

    It takes pretty smooth auditing to do this and not miss. So if in doubt, one can again check the question. But never hound or harass a PC about it. Inexpert checking questions for read can result in a harassed PC and drive him out of session so this auditing action, like any other, requires smooth auditing.

    L. RON HUBBARD
    Founder
    LRH:dm:bk