Auditing the preclear in front of us is not a rote procedure – part one

The primary difference between a competent and effective auditor and a rote automaton is that the competent auditor has his attention on the preclear rather than on the next step of the procedure he hopes to execute.

There are literally hundreds of processes an auditor might employ at any given moment, if he fully understands what is happening in the preclear’s universe and is trained to use them.

If the auditor has been trained to believe that there is only one way to audit this preclear because the C/S says so, this auditor will eventually run into one of the many “non-standard” preclears and will end up frustrated with himself and with the C/S.

Ron Hubbard did his best to reduce auditing to a rote procedure and David Miscavige has carried that to an unworkable extreme with GAT, the “Golden Age of Tech”. You can discuss this forever, but if the church auditing procedure worked as Ron hoped it would, there would not be the vast number of failed cases messing up the field.

When auditing works, miracles occur. I have seen this time after time. I have also seen over the course of 36 years, too many cases where the auditing delivered did not handle what the pcs needed and wanted handled and the pc eventually wandered off the lines.

If you listen to the tapes of Ron auditing, you will notice that he certainly felt free to improvise as the session progressed. Lots of the refinements were not in place yet and he did things that we now know were evaluative but you can hear that he was very observant about what was happening in the preclear’s universe and he did his best to address what was bothering the preclear.

The church auditor of today is given instructions what he is to do in session and if it is found to be unworkable, he can end the session and ask for another C/S instruction. From personal experience in the HGCs of several advanced organizations, I know that the auditor’s observations are given short shrift and he is sent to cramming until he does it the way the C/S thinks it should be done. I have battled with C/Ses for many years to make sure that the preclear got what was needed and I generally succeeded, but I felt that this was an unnecessary burden on the auditor and the pc.

In my independent practice, I have refined my approach so that the C/S is only a guideline and the session deals with what the preclear wants to handle that day. If the Preclear is being run on a process, it is run to the correct end phenomena, but we handle anything and everything that comes up in that session. Every read is handled to a floating needle and very good indicators.

I consider myself responsible for the conduct and the outcome of every session. By staying in close communication with the preclear, and responding when the Preclear originates, I find that corrections lists are rarely needed. The preclear is willing to tell me what he wants to handle if I only give him the opportunity.

For example, if a preclear originates that he has been denied the chance to originate that he is Clear, it can be a life changing action to clean that up and rehabilitate the state right when the origination is made. The interposition of a lengthy review action in unecessary and is invalidative, especially when the Clear Certainty Rundown or DCSI is incorrecetly and rotely run as is the usual case.

Attempting to enforce a standard handling on a preclear is frustrating to the auditor and harmful to the preclear, as preclears do not come in standard sizes or abilities.

I will cover some of the more interesting variations in future posts.

These are some of the original comments:


Becky  on November 4th, 2012

Thank you.

bboy  on November 4th, 2012

Very interesting. I never made it through the auditing lineup inside the “Church” so this is quite an eye opener!

bboy  on November 4th, 2012

OK … I need details: if you were in the middle of a particular rundown and the pc started talking about something else, you wouldn’t just Q and A with him, right? You’d repeat the question, right? Where do you draw the line about what the pc wants handled that day and staying with the auditing cycle you are in the middle of?

OldAuditor  on November 4th, 2012

bboy, that is an excellent question! It brings into light what we are doing when we audit someone and how do we treat a preclear origination.

Here is what Ron says about Q and A:


Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex


A great number of auditors Q and A.
This is because they have not understood what it is.
Nearly all their auditing failures stem not from using wrong processes but from Q and A.
Accordingly I have looked the matter over and re-defined Q and A.
The origin of the term comes from “changing when the pc changes”. The basic answer to a question is, obviously, a question if one follows the duplication of the Comm formula completely. See Philadelphia Congress 1953 tapes where this was covered very fully. A later definition was “Questioning the pc’s Answer”. Another effort to overcome it and explain Q & A was the Anti-Q and A drill. But none of these reached home.
The new definition is this:
Q and A is a failure to complete a Cycle of Action on a preclear.
A cycle of action is redefined as Start – Continue – Complete.
Thus an auditing comm cycle is a cycle of action. It starts with the auditor asking a question the preclear can understand, getting the preclear to answer it and acknowledging that answer.
A process cycle is selecting a process to be run on the preclear, running the Tone Arm action into it (if necessary) and running the Tone Arm action out of it.
A programme cycle is selecting an action to be performed, performing that action and completing it.
Thus you can see that an auditor who interrupts or changes an auditing comm cycle before it is complete is “Q and A-ing”. This could be done by violating or preventing or not doing any part of the auditing cycle, i.e., ask the pc a question, get an answer to a different idea, ask the different idea, thus abandoning the original question.
An auditor who starts a process, just gets it going, gets a new idea because of pc cognition, takes up the cognition and abandons the original process is Q and A-ing.
A programme such as “Prepcheck this pc’s family” is begun, and for any reason left incomplete to go chasing some new idea to Prepcheck, is a Q and A.
Unfinished cycles of action are all that louse up cases.
Since Time is a continuum, a failure to carry out a cycle of action (a continuum) hangs the pc up at that exact point.
If you don’t believe it, prepcheck “Incomplete actions” on a pc! What Incomplete action has been suppressed? etc. cleaning the meter for real on every button. And you’d have a clear – or a pc that would behave that way on a meter.
Understand this and you’ll be about ninety times as effective as an auditor.
“Don’t Q and A!” means “Don’t leave cycles of action incomplete on a pc.”
The gains you hope to achieve on a pc are lost when you Q and A.


Taking up a pc cognition is not necessarily the same as taking up a pc origination.
Usually, a pc cognition with VGIs and a floating needle means end of process.
You will notice that Ron makes the process more important than the pc’s cognition in this reference.
You will have to work this out for yourself whether the process or your cognition is more important.
(Most of my repairs concern cognitions that were ignored by auditors grinding away to reach some end of process.)

It depends on what your “CYCLE OF ACTION” on the preclear is. My cycle of action is to handle what the pc has attention on and we do whatever is necessary to uncover this and handle it terminatedly. If there are other factors involved as is frequently the case with undeclared clears, we handle them and the preclear himself to an fning result.

Any arbitrary like “only handle what you start and damn the pc if he originates something not connected with what the materials state” is a guaranteed route to eventual disaster. Look at the earlier writings of LRH to get the true greatness he was capable of and you may decide that you too are capable of exercising judgement as an auditor.

Grant beingness to your pc and keep your Auditor’s code in and you may find that auditing is not all that complicated once you discard the arbitraries imposed over the years.

If you are hesitant about thinking along these lines, you should read and participate in the discussions on Free Scientologist on Facebook. It might answer some of the questions you have had for years.

bboy  on November 4th, 2012

Cool! Thanks for that!

Jan  on November 5th, 2012

For me it looks like C/Síng in the chair?

OldAuditor  on November 5th, 2012

Jan, I can see where you are coming from, but you might want to read these references to get a broader view of what styles of auditing are required with different levels of pc:

Transcript of Lecture 6411C17 SHSpec-47 STYLES OF AUDITING, a lecture given on 17 November 1964


These are the styles of auditing described by LRH:


…So, the auditing style, then, is adjusted to the most likely progress for the pc. You possibly have never much thought of this subject of “How does the pc receive auditing?” see. “How does the pc react to auditing?”

…But the actual fact is, the actual fact is that the actions of auditing all by themselves, completely devoid of processes, account for a very respectable portion of the pc’s gain.

….you’ll find it in auditing styles. And it’s how you audit the pc to a gain.

My pcs generally require all style auditing.

LO  on November 5th, 2012

C/sing in the chair?

I would say no, just using common sense in the chair and be there for the PC! What’s wrong with that?

This is more basic then the process itself!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *