6309C26 SHSpec-311 Summary III: About Level IV Auditing

Do not underestimate the difficulty of R3 processes that look for the
PC's goal. What saves our bacon is R3SC, which permits unburdening of the
bank by removing the two top RI's. R3SC gives you a variety of locks, which
can be called possible service facs. You get perhaps five or six of these.
Pick the one that gives the most TA to list goals on. It won't be the RI, but
it will give you the entrance point for the goal. Then you can try to find a
goal which that fits, by asking, "What goal would/might relate to (possible
service fac, obtained from R3SC)?" The over-restimulation of the top RI's was
what made finding the PC's goal difficult and prevented the goal from rocket
reading.

To parallel with processing what the mind is doing has always been the
basic mission of processing. The mind is holding in the PC's two postulated
RI's, based on his most recent goal. On top of those, we will have locks.
Finding the locks takes charge off the RI's. We list goals against a lock
that gave good TA. Since it has been unburdened, the goal can rocket read.
If you get the wrong goal, i.e. too early a goal, you can oppose it to get up
to the PT goal. Note that a PT goal is not very high-toned. It tends to be
a pretty degraded one.

When you've got the PT goal, you want the top terminal. This is hard to
find, because the GPM is truncated, incomplete. You can find out roughly
where the PC is in the GPM and get the terminal, by getting the PC to list,
"What are you in PT that relates to (the goal)?" On all other GPM's, you can
ask for the top oppterm, but not in the case of the PT GPM. This is the
truncated GPM.

The programming for any actual GPM, whether a totally formed one or a
truncated one, is to find the top RI's, go down through the GPM to the bottom,
and take out the bottom-plus-one RI. You may have to find the next goal to
get the bottom oppterm. You want the goal as an RI discharged, and you want
what it opposes totally flat. You want the PC totally out of that bank before
you repair it. You do it this way, because the goal as an RI and its
opposition hold everything fixed and rigid in the bank until they are gone.
Go all the way down; then come up. Check the items you found on the way down
to see if any are still ticking. If so, they came from an incomplete list.
Abandon that item and complete the list it came from. From this, you will get
a whole new series of RI's to do.

The reason why we don't go from the bottom of the bank to the top is that
the goal is part and parcel of every RI. It you listed starting at the
bottom, from the goal as oppterm, you tend to beef up the whole bank. You
throw every RI alive, and the PC can't reach them. He will have a very heavy
time. You could find yourself getting turned around and heading for the
bottom of the bank again. It is easier to go from the top down, partly
because the PC has been implanted with thousands of GPM's backwards. The main
reason is that the PC is more interested in the later RI's than the earlier
ones. Also, you are unburdening as you go down.

Coming up past actual goals, while doing the goals oppose lists [See p.
520, above], restimulates the PC more than if you just got the PT goal right
off the bat, but this procedure is acceptable, so long as you don't try to run
some far backtrack GPM. If you foolishly start to run one, you are committed
to running it all the way out. And it will be difficult, since it is unreal
and inapplicable to his PT condition. It is a great strain on the auditor
and the PC. The only reason why you get old backtrack GPM's being restimulated in PT and coming up, for example, in R3SC would be something like:

1. The past goal may be some kind of dichotomy with the PT goal or with a
goal near PT.

2. It seems safe. It is far from anything that is wrong with the PC.

Even if the goal you were running turns out not to be the PT goal, finish
running it. Then take another shot at the PT goal. When you have the PT
goal, start listing for the terminal of the first pair of RI's. Then go right
on down the PT GPM. Clean out the whole bottom of the GPM. When you have
cleaned out the whole PT GPM, you have to find the goal of the next GPM down.
Then [find] the top oppterm of this goal. That is easy. You just ask, "Who
or what would (the goal as an RI) oppose?" Then, despite the PC's protest
about it, go back and clean up the PT GPM, picking up any RI's that you missed
on the way down. When it is all cleaned up, you can put a polish on it by
prepchecking the auditing of it and prepchecking the goal. Sometimes the TA
will go up and stick, because the PC's interest is in the next bank down. All
you have to do about this is to call it to the PC's attention, and the TA will
come down. If you don't finish up a GPM, it will give you trouble from then
on. When you do your next GPM, do the same -- top to bottom and clean it up
in reverse. When you get two or more items ticking on this step, always take
the one nearest the top and work on it. Say you have three items ticking as
you read the line plot. Take the top one. Then you won't have to worry about
the other two. They will fly off and cease to be part of the list. Recheck
for ticks, etc., until there are no more reactions.

Get the idea of a short-circuited electric blanket 35ft by 3ft by 10ft,
coal-black, or fuzzy black with grey undertones. Sometimes it is grey. This
object is one actual GPM of the PC's. It is made of ideas. Both a GPM and a
block of concrete are "ideas". If you get an actual GPM out of sequence and
get items out of other GPM's, they pile up on the PC and jam here and there.
A PC can get GPM's out of sequence and maul them about. Say you have a carpet
of these things that stretches about a mile. At the bottom is the earliest
past. Say you take the third from the beginning of track and insert it between
the third and fourth GPM's back from PT. Now criss-cross the items from the
early GPM with the items from the fourth GPM back. When you do a case
analysis, you park two of the GPM's over to the left. Now you find more items
in the GPM that is ten back. You find wrong items, and it goes out of gear
and is thought of as long in the past. It goes out with three that are
twenty-five yards away. This is longshoremen's work. In livingness, the PC
may have found a new use for an old goal. He may have pulled it out of line.
So an auditor gets at it, goofs, and you have debris all over the place. It
is a mechanical proposition, like diving into tar pits. It is that physical.
When you run a GPM correctly, the PC will start getting repetitive rocket
reads, as the GPM folds up. As the PC's perception comes up, he can start to
see the GPM discharge and fall apart. Sometimes you have to run two or three
GPM before he sees these things. The further back on the track GPM's are, the
bigger they get. They are like black islands. The PC can energize the whole
thing by raking his thetan paws over it, grubbing around in it. Sometimes he
activates his own suppress, and it all goes black. Sometimes the PC gets into
a "creak" of BPC in his vicinity, where he feels pulled or pushed into an odd
shape by unidentified BPC.

When a PC is in trouble, you have a new tool to use: analysis of whatever
you've got. For instance, when you find an RI, before accepting it do an RI
analysis on it:

1. Make sure there are no bypassed RI's.

2. Find out whether it came off an incomplete list.

3. Find out whether the wording in it is correct.

4. Find out whether its position in the bank is correct.

5. Find out if it is from the right goal, i.e. not from some other GPM.

If one of these reads, finding out now saves time and trouble. It is the same
with a goal. We want to know if it is an implant goal or an actual goal and
whether it is in the right place, etc. Don't expect an analysis to be
completely valid, however. The case can be so charged that nothing reads, or
that not enough can be seen to sort out what is there, because of charge. So
we have the rule: Complete process cycles of action begun on the PC, given
available time. And when you do a case analysis, do it and then complete what
you were doing before you did the analysis. E.g., you were opposing
"catgut". The PC is in a creak. You do a case analysis and find out that you
had a wrongly-worded goal. Fine. Now go back and finish opposing "catgut".

Case analysis has shown up the fact that auditors have Q and A'd by
finding something wrong, going off to fix it, and then never completing the
action they were previously on. This would be enough to keep PCs from going
to OT. The case analysis is there to take the creak out, not to be followed.
It is the same situation as with an ARC break assessment. You want to find
the BPC, not to do something about it. If you get a case into a repair
session with lots of incomplete cycles, which is now in the middle of
something else, finish what the PC is in the middle of, because that is where
his interest is. Or take the cycle the PC's attention is stuck in. Do that
one first. This is not necessarily the earliest cycle left incomplete.
However, sometimes the PC's interest is in the case analysis, and the
auditor's interest is in the case analysis. It is more interesting than
hod-work. The PC wants to lay bricks and make things pretty. If you find out
that the item you are listing against is wrong, don't try to complete the
list. Complete the earlier list that you got the wrong item from. The
general rule of completing auditing cycles of actions begun on the PC needs to
be applied, using one's judgment about importances and working from
fundamentals.