In checking over the evaluations of others, there is no substitute for following the hard and fast rule of insisting upon

a. Purity of evaluation

"Somebody has evaluators on a 'whole org' kick where the evaluation must handle the whole org. Evidence of this is 'the Why' lately was defined as something that handled all outpoints. The initial step of the stat analysis to find the area and then find its situation and its Why is not being done. Hence individual org situations do not get spotted or evaluated and evaluations take forever."

b. Consistency

(One of the org evaluations submitted to LRH was returned with the following note.) "This evaluation has almost no outpoints in it. Almost every paragraph is a situation requiring evaluation.

c. Workability

"A situation is something that affects stats or survival of the org.

d. Authenticity of the data.

"An outpoint is something that contributes to a situation and should not be in the situation area.

There are no small rules. To quote one of these, "The situation is the direct opposite of the ideal scene." This is not necessarily true and is not a precise definition. A situation is the most major departure from the ideal scene. That's purity by definition.

"A Why is the real basic reason for the situation which, being found, opens the door to handling.

A Why is not necessarily opposite to an ideal scene. But it is of the same order of thing.

"Evaluators who are trying to embrace the whole org of world in one evaluation are missing all the real situations or landing only in Division Seven."

Example: Stat of Income Divided by Staff sunk to 15£.

(The following is a despatch written by LRH in May 1976 regarding an earlier evaluation done on an org which LRH was evaluating at the time.)

Ideal scene: Staff producing under competent management.

"That evaluation, that was to pull in the CO, had one of these 'philosophical Whys,' 'The CO and HCO have prevented execs from being made by omitting actions that would accomplish this (i.e. choosing suitable ones, hatting, training and appren­ticing them) which has led to blows and 19th century solution of transfers and removals and eventually no execs at all.' That's all fine but you can ask of it, 'How come they're doing that? so it couldn't be a bottom level Why. Anytime you can ask a 'How come? you haven't got a Why, you have a situation.

Sit: Execs not coming to work.

"Just an off-the-cuff Why better than that would be 'Day and Foundation staff are the same, allowing no time to hat and train' or another, 'There is no HCO staff' or another 'Only a handful make the GI and the rest of the org is considered superfluous'-yet none of these are the Why either as you can also again ask 'How come? And the org is delivering.

Why: The ED has forbidden any exec to be paid.

"So this is what I am working on now. The new type of evaluation would use telex lines and FRs to ask a lot of questions after one had found the real situation. It would go: Find the situation area from stats, find the situation from data files, get some sort of a Why (that will now become the situation) and burn the telex lines or send a mission from the FOLO to find out how come that situation. You would then get the real Why and could do a program. This would make evaluations pretty real!"

If you look this over it is consistent. But it is not reversals or opposites.

The stat found the area, the ideal scene was easy. Search of data found the sit as the biggest departure. Further search found the Why. Further search and knowledge of the existing scene would get a bright idea (which would not be sacking the ED who is probably the only one coming to work, but more likely getting the ED and execs into a hello-okay session and resolve their hates and ordering execs be paid at once).

"I found that getting the sit was a common bug. Evidently people don't do a real stat analysis and get an ideal scene, look for its furthest departure and get the sit and then look for data and find the Why.

"There are many ways to go about it but the above is easy, simple and foolproof.

"It would look like this on a worksheet:

"GDS analysis to find the area and a conditional guess.

"Ideal scene for that area.

"Biggest depart from it for the SITUATION.

• "Stats

"If you're very good your GDS analysis will get confirmed by data.

"The real Why opens the door to handling.

"And you can handle.

"This doesn't change eval form. It's just a working model.

"All good evals are very consistent-all on same railroad track. Not pies, sea lions, space ships. But pies, apples, flour, sugar, stoves.

"I think evaluators get dispersed and Q and A with data, lacking any guideline. And so take a near forever.

"Last one I did, the GDS analysis gave the whole scene and then it got confirmed, all on the same outline as above. That org is still booming!

"It took 61/2 hours, including doing the majority of the targets!

"It doesn't take days or weeks, much less months!

"It takes hours."