As of this date only the following processes may be used in HGCs, Central or City Offices, excepting only Academies where any process may be used for training.

For all cases that show one or more points near the very bottom of the graph on Traits A, B, C, D, E, F, and G regardless of other test or meter criteria, and for all cases that show all points within 25 points of the top of the graph, again regardless of other meter or test criteria:

1. CCHs.
2. Joburg Processing Checks.

The CCHs are to be run by their earliest criteria — London '57 — which is to say CCHs 1, 2, 3, 4, are run in rotation and each only so long as it produces change and no longer. Change is measured by Comm Lag or alterations of pc in doing process. Do, for instance, CCH 1 only so long as it is producing changes in pc's responses to doing it. Twenty minutes of no-change of response should be regarded as nul for the moment. One then goes on to CCH 2. The same rule applies. Only if pc's responses are faster or slower or different each time, continue the process. Test for twenty minutes, again all of which must produce no marked difference of response to the process. If process is now nul, go on to CCH 3. Same rules apply. Go on to CCH 4. Same rules apply. Go to CCH 1. Same rules apply. Etc, etc. It is a Code Break (Clause 13) to change the process while the pc is giving differences of timing (comm lag) or attitudes of response. It is a Code Break (Clause 13) to fail to change the process when the pc is not giving any differences in timing or attitudes of response.

If done this way and with good Tone 40 wonderful results are achieved by the CCHs.

The case criteria is meant to embrace the “no auditor” case at the bottom and the “Theetie Weetie Case” (sweetness and light) case at the extreme top of the graph (who will go to graph bottom before the case starts up again as though the profile were a cylinder which when it goes off the top, then appears on the bottom when people are in “serene” valences [meaning they are wholly overwhelmed as a thetan].)

1. The Johannesburg Processing Check is the same as the Joburg Security Check only it is now being used for processing purposes with great results. I have rewritten it in HCO WW Form 3 as the Joburg Security Check and will rewrite it as HCO WW Form 4 calling it “HGC Gain Control Check” or some such name, but the questions are about the same. Meanwhile use Form 3 as is in HGCs. Don't rewrite or omit.
   The directions are on the Check form. The difference is that in using the Joburg in Processing, these rules apply:
2. Clear all needle reaction from any question before going on to the next question. By-pass no reaction you see on the meter to the question. If you do let one slide, the pc will shortly complain about being given the check. If a pc starts complaining about the check, you have either passed a hot question without getting the withhold, or he has a hot withhold. Remedy: if pc complains continually while being checked during processing (not in pure Security Checking for the Org but in using the check in processing) you go back to the beginning and start over.
3. The Joburg used in processing only is done in Model Session only. However on the question, “Are you withholding anything?”, don't spend more time than needed to clear PT withholds on the auditor as the whole check is devoted to withholds.
4. If pc refuses check altogether and you can't get on, return pc to CCHs, do them a few more hours and try the check again.

This is all there is to Routine One. CCHs and Joburgs. And the graph is now the full criteria of when you use Routine One.

This is covered very fully in HCO Bulletin of May 25, 1961, “Releasing and Preparing a Case for SOP Goals” and other current HCO Bulletins.

Routine Two consists of two steps only.

1. Joburg checks, given as above in Routine One.
2. General Runs on Pre-Hav Scale without terminal, using Primary and Secondary Scales.
3. On PT Problems of Long Duration (years or within this lifetime only) assess on meter for terminal and nul the Tone Arm for each level, level after level, using mainly the Primary Scale.
4. Find the pc's Havingness and Confront Processes and use them briefly early in each session and at each session's end and where needed.

For every general level flattened fully on the Pre-Hav Level found, do a Joburg.

For every PTP of Long Duration, completed, run a Joburg.

The Hav and Confront Processes can be found at any time but are better found after one Joburg and one general level flattened.

Why all these Joburgs? As a case gains it gains in responsibility. As it gains in responsibility, the pc remembers more withholds and considers the things he has done more in the light of having been overts. If the case isn't given a chance to get rid of these, it stalls. Or the pc is half killed by realizations that he has been bad when the targets of his overts unlessen from pigs to people. Therefore it is brutally unkind to improve a case without then removing the withholds now realized. This is also an excellent therapeutic mechanism. It is also an excellent test of a pc's progress, i. e: if he has no more withholds on a new Joburg that weren't found on his last, the pc isn't progressing. On successive Joburgs if no new overts and withholds show up that weren't there before, the pc is not progressing. Yes, I've found why cases stalled and gained only so far and then blew. Your thanks are in order.

This Routine Two, closely followed and carried out, will bring out the state of Release in from 50 to 75 hours.

1. SOP Goals Assessments for goals and Terminals;
2. Running SOP Goals Terminals Flat on every level;
3. Joburg Processing checks (as in One and Two above);
4. Use of Hav and Confront Processes as in Routine Two or finding new Hav and Confront Processes as case gets more able.

This is the full extent of the things used in Routine 3. Routines 2 and 3 are not crossed or intermixed.

Routine 3, if one is expert indeed, can be done on any case but one can make mistakes, find the wrong goal or terminal, and so, until fully briefed and flawless in TRs, E-Meter, Model Session and Assessing, an auditor will get more case gains per unit of time by using Routine Two. When he or she is a Release, it is much easier some day to have Routine 3 then completed if the person is Released first.

In short, for sure gains until you are sure of your tools, as listed above, use Routines 1 and 2. When you are perfect in handling SOP Goals, do Routine 3 on pcs.

On running general runs and SOP Goals Terminals on Pre-Hav Levels, the most serious mistake that can be made is not flattening a level before reassessing.

On a rough case, the TA motion required to end is present at the beginning and so auditors leave the level and leave it unflat.

If two or more levels are run and left unflat, the pc can feel he is spinning! Flatten levels in this wise:

1. Run until TA is showing better motion.
2. Run until needle is practically stuck for the whole of 20 minutes.
3. Reassess.

Example on a sticky meter case: Level Assessed: “Build”

First three hours of running: Tone Arm dial reads:

4.2, 4.3, 4.1, 3.9, 4.2.

Second three hours of running:

4.2, 4.4, 4.1, 4.6, 4.0, 3.75, 4.9, 3.5, 4.3, 3.25.

Third period of two hours:

3.25, 3.5, 3.2, 3.6, 3.9, 4.1, 4.0, 3.0, 3.5, 4.7, 3.6, 4.8, 5.0, 4.7.

Last twenty minutes: 4.7,5.0,5.0,5.0,4.9,5.0,5.1,5.0.

Note that the “Leave it when the TA moves less than a 1/4 of a TA Dial in 20 minutes” seems to apply to first three hours. Actually the TA, on a rough case (sensitivity 2 to get a 1/3 dial drop) does not begin to move for quite a while. Then it begins to move. Then it nuls.

So be careful. It is better to have a TA stuck for 20 minutes than to leave a level unflat.

Since February, 1961, I've been teaching auditors close up and far away how to clear.

I have now a pretty good grip on what they can and will do. I have been modifying the tools to fit hands more than to fit cases. They already fit the cases and have since February.

The auditor who can do CCHs and has a fair command of Routines 1 and 2 and who “keeps the Rudiments in” and doesn't Q and A and who has a good D of P behind him to see that he does, can get wonderful case results with Routines 1 and 2.

Only the auditor who has perfect TRs, a total command of the E-Meter, Perfect Model Session, a good grip on assessing, and whose case is in excellent shape, should attempt SOP Goals — and that right now isn't two dozen and aside from Peter and Eliz Williams, their two new ACC Clears and a few of their ACC Students, aside from the South African Clear Jean Kennedy and a very few S. A. ACC Students, the rest are right here at Saint Hill. At this moment there are none in America and there will only be one there by July 30th, 1961. There are none in England outside the boundaries of Saint Hill who could clear and only one genned in on Routine Two at HASI London.

So there's what I've found out after an awful lot of work with you guys. I've found most of you can do Routine One, some of you can do Routine Two. None save the above named can (not by permission but by actual fact) do Routine Three.

I've also found out that all this is very easy to remedy and that your willingness is superb.

Our work is cut out for us, but boy, do we know where we're going.

We have to get all auditors perfect on the TRs, Model Session, E-Meter, Security Checking, Pre-Hav Assessing and SOP Goals. And it can be done very easily. When we've got that we'll have loads of Clears.

And what do you think that will do to this society?

[See also HCO PL 24 August 1961, HGC Allowed Processes, page 369.]