I am in a hurry to get this bulletin to you and to get it into use for all except CCH sessions.
For a long time I’ve been urging you to get rudiments in. For the past ten days I have been working hard to analyze and resolve why you sometimes cannot.
Just as an E-Meter can go dead for the auditor in the presence of a monstrous ARC break, I have found it can go gradiently dull in the presence of out rudiments. If you fail to get one in then the outness of the next one reads faintly. And if your TR1 is at all poor, you’ll miss the rudiment’s outness and there goes your session.
To get over these difficulties, I have developed a Model Session that can be used, in the rudiments, as a series of repetitive processes.
Then, with this, I’ve developed Repetitive Rudiments.
The auditor at first does not consult the meter, but asks the rudiments question of the pc until the pc says there is no further answer. At this point the auditor says, “I will check that on the meter.” And asks the question again. If it reads, the auditor uses the meter to steer the pc to the answer, and when the pc finds the answer, the auditor again lays the meter aside and asks the question of the pc as above until the pc has no answer. The auditor again says, “I will check that on the meter” and does so.
The cycle is repeated over and over until the meter is clean of any instant read (see HCO Bulletin of May 25, 1962 for Instant Read).
The cycle:
1. Run the rudiment as a repetitive process until pc has no answer.
2. Consult meter for a hidden answer.
3. If meter reads use it to steer (“that” “that” each time the meter flicks) the pc to the answer.
4. Lay aside the Meter and do 1 and 2 and 3.
The process is flat when there is no instant read to the question.
One does not “bridge out” or use “two more commands”. When the meter test of the question gets no instant read, the auditor says, “Do you agree that that is clean?” covertly looking at the needle as he or she says “clean”. If the question really isn’t clean, there will be an instant read on “Do you agree the question is clean?” If there is such a read, do 1, 2 and 3 again.
The trick here is the definition of “In Session”. If the pc is in session the meter will read. If the pc is partially out the meter will read poorly, and the rudiment will not register and the rudiment will get missed. But with the pc in session the meter will read well for the auditor. Thus you get the pc to talk to the auditor about his own case, the definition of “in session”, before consulting the meter by using the repetitive process.
What a relief to the pc to have his rudiments in! And goodbye ARC breaks and no auditing results!
Use this system always on the beginning rudiments for every type of session.
Use this system on the Middle Rudiments in a havingness and sometimes on the Prepcheck type of session. But seldom on a Routine 3 (goals) type of session.
Use this system always on the End Rudiments of a havingness session. Do not use it on the End Rudiments of a Prepcheck or Routine 3 type of session unless the session has been full of screaming pc (which with this system it won’t be).
So that’s where Repetitive auditing processes wind up. Addressed to rudiments!
A tip – you can ARC break a session by overuse of Middle Rudiments on Routine 3 processes. Never use the Middle Rudiments just because the pc is talking about his or her own case. That’s the definition of In Session. Use Middle Rudiments in Routine 3 when you have not had any meter needle response on three goals read three times (not one goal read disturbed the needle). Then get your Middle Rudiments in and cover the first consecutive nul goal above (the three that gave no response). Don’t use Middle Ruds just because 3 goals went nul. Only if no reading of a goal disturbed the needle for three goals in a row. Also use Middle Ruds when the pc “can’t think of any more” in listing of goals or items. Don’t use every time you shift lists now. Only if the pc “can’t list more”.
In Prepchecking use Middle Ruds Repetitively after 3 Zero questions have each been nul on a list of Zeros and recheck those Zeros if Middle Ruds were out. Use Middle Ruds after each What question was nulled and check the What question again and rework it if alive. Also check the Zero questions if a What went nul. If a Zero advanced to a What, both What and Zero must be checked for nullness and found nul before leaving them.
One Middle Rudiments use may suffice for both unless one was found still alive after the Middle Ruds were gotten in. Repair it and recheck if so.
A Fast Check on the Rudiments consists only of steps 2 and 3 of the cycle done over and over.
Watching the meter the auditor asks the question, takes up only what reads and, careful not to Q and A, clears it. One does this as many times as is necessary to get a clean needle. But one still says, “Do you agree that that is clean?” and catches up the disagreement by getting the additional answers. When both the question and the agreement are seen to be clean, the question is left.
In using Fast Checking never say, “that still reads.” That’s a flunk. Say, “There’s another read here.”
You cannot easily handle a transistor type meter more sensitive than a Mark IV. The needle would be so rapid in its swings you would find it nearly impossible to keep it centred. Therefore a more sensitive meter was no answer. The TR 1 of many auditors lacks any great impingement. And this is remediable only when “altitude” can also be remedied. There had to be a better answer to getting out rudiments to read better on a Meter for all auditors and all pcs. Repetitive Rudiments is the best answer to this.
(Note: I am indebted to Mary Sue, when I was working on this problem, for calling my attention back to this system which I originally developed for Sec Checking and where it worked well.)