Any time a Case Supervisor sees long stenographic recounts and notes in the auditor's worksheets he knows the pc has not got an auditor there running the session.
If the auditor is writing down every word the pc says (like a stenographer) the auditor's TRs will be out and session control will have passed to the pc. No auditor can write fast enough to take down everything the pc says and at the same time observe the pc, maintain session control and keep in his TRs.
On the worksheets you note, in abbreviated form, the technical actions taken by the auditor, the pc response, time and TA.
The Case Supervisor expects a synopsis of the incident or what the pc says, e.g. in Dianetic auditing the auditor writes down sufficient for the Case Supervisor to see what sort of incident is being run and if it is on the correct chain.
One should not go to the other extreme by noting only the auditor's tech actions as this gives the C/S no means of evaluating the session.
The auditor who just sits and lets the pc roll on and on running a sort of solo session will seldom get results. It is a pretense of auditing. The auditor controls the session. The auditor does not supersede auditing by admin. Never hold the pc up while you write or the pc will go onto automatic.
Because he does not see the pc's pictures the auditor in some cases feels he cannot control them or that they do not really exist.
The pictures do exist. They respond to the auditor not the pc. Auditor plus pc is greater than the bank. A stenographer is not an auditor. An auditor controls the session, has excellent TRs and gets results.