You are very fortunate people, to come all the way down the track, having done all those stupid things, and to wind up here with a chance out. The chance is as good as you can audit, and not a bit better. The number of raw-meat PCs that will go out through the roof is nonexistent. Unless they become fully trained auditors, they won't make it. The raw meat case is very easy to audit, but what you are doing is auditing the charge off the top RI's. A scientologist appears to be a tougher case because the charge is off of those. You will have to find the two top RI's, now. and go on down the bank.
You can't go on and run the bank on someone who hasn't a clue about his mind, who doesn't know what is there, frontwards and backwards. The PC's RI's only disintegrate when found in their right locations, even though they can be found out of position. So don't worry about a case getting messed up by RI's being found in the wrong place. Goals which have already been run can mess things up. All you can do if an RI or a GPM has been run is to date them. Even after you have run an RI, you can verify it by dating. The reason for this is that, in running it, you pulled it a little out of its own time-sphere. So you can still get a bit of a bang on dating it and reorienting it. You are just getting the idea of it, which is still there in position. The mass is already gone.
Sooner or later, someone will take a lot of clay and work out the mind with the PC, an unusually smart PC, who will get it and go on being audited, with understanding, but this will be a very rare occurrence. Getting someone to be responsible for a session occurs on a gradient. The people who start on an HCA course, etc., are already pre-selected, just by the fact that they enrolled. Any of them, including any upper-level auditor, including LRH, gets nervous over PCs, wondering if the TA is moving, the PC doing OK, etc. That is to be expected. People who persist into upper levels of training are further pre-determined by their willingness to continue in the face of struggle and disappointment.
There is an additional problem: Where do you take over the PC's itsa, so as to allow him to itsa just enough, neither cutting it short nor letting the PC wander around mucking things up. These points vary from PC to PC, and with the same PC, as he gets more able. Some PCs have good perception, and if they say it is so, it probably is so. With other PCs, you can count on it. that if they say "It's a _______ ," it isn't. You should be increasing the PC's perception of and confront on his own bank. So as the PC gets closer to OT, you should have him in good enough shape so that he can perceive what is there to be run next. Where you can deduce change in the PC, you are, of course, changing the values by which you audit. Also, the PC's itsa can deteriorate, if he has had some loses and the case is going sideways and backwards. You will have to take over more responsibility for directing his attention, until he is fixed up. Cases are always different from one moment to the next.
Low-level cases "run on 'fat'.... They have charge leaking out of their ears." When you have gotten off the "fat" that exists on the two top RI's, you have got the whole bank to deal with. Now you have to be a genius to find some "fat" to get off the case, and the case is more likely to get ARC broken from the aspect of cleaning cleans. This makes you a very good auditor. What happens when someone is in the position of doing R4? They are probably somewhat trained by now, but they will need more training. The surest way to get to be OT is to be a highly trained auditor, for various reasons, including the aplomb that it takes to confront the bank. A case is on its way to OT when the first GPM has been run out. This can take up to two years after finding the first (not necessarily the most recent) goal. Running out that first (top) GPM is more Hell for the PC than anything the thetan has thought of confronting, and this is true for several reasons: the state of the technology, the hazards of the auditing, possible errors, previous errors, the lack of the PC's perception of the PT GPM because of its PT restimulators, etc., etc. Raw meat, not understanding what is happening, won't put up with it. They can't confront it.
Even though a goal is an incorrect goal, it could be that only its position is incorrect, not its wording. You can get wrong items, a wrong line plot, for an implant GPM, without turning off the rocket read. But if you take an actual GPM and try to run it on an implant pattern, it turns off the rocket read right now, and it turns off any other meter phenomena as well.
There is another horrible datum: An actual goal, invalidated, will now behave like a wrong goal. It will turn on the same creaks as a really wrong goal. The PC will ARC break the same way. It will read as a wrong goal. It will turn off ARC breaks when indicated. And so forth. So now, after you do a case analysis, prepcheck everything found, so that you don't discard an actual goal. It is possible that a wrong goal, sufficiently asserted and validated, might behave like a right goal. One thing will still be the case: any actually wrong goal, or an actual goal run as an implant goal, will turn off the rocket read within two or three items. This saves you from running a wrong goal. You won't have any rocket read to run it with! What is dangerous is that an actual goal, thoroughly invalidated, will be consistently discarded by the auditor. He and the PC agree that "to spit" is a wrong goal, and they continue looking for the next GPM in line or the PT GPM, but they will never find it. Many are called, and few ever hit the top of the bank. These are the sorts of errors that can occur and that make R4 Hell for PC and auditor. Nothing will make it easier, because that is happening with all the data, the best-trained auditor, and the most educated PCs. R4 takes a high degree of skill, compounded with a phenomenal degree of luck.
With hindsight, one can see how things got off the track, but as one proceeds, one is walking in the dark with a thousandth of a millimeter peephole. What takes time in R4 is the mistake. The worse R4 goes, the harder it gets for the PC and the auditor to see what is the true state of affairs. However, don't put attention on not making mistakes, because the effort not to make mistakes will produce mistakes, directly and indirectly. Most of the auditing time is consumed in handling mistakes, and most of the mistakes you make are in trying not to make mistakes. Anything that can make a meter go out, or any condition that can get you an erroneous read, is then susceptible to throwing out a case analysis, and your own efforts to straighten out a case analysis are susceptible to throwing out a case analysis. And a case analysis can be wrong in the first place. OK. Those are the nerves with which you live. So the only questions for a case analysis and the only points of randomity should be:
1. Exactly what is happening with this bank that I am handling?
2. Exactly how is it going together?
3. What are the contributive data I have, with which to make up my mind about the situations in this bank?
So you have to have basic auditing and techniques down to the no-attention state, because there are enough hazards and difficulties in case analysis, so that you have no attention to spare for anything else. The ideal scene with the auditor and the PC is still going to be a porcupine-juggling act. You should be able to "think bank", so as to be able to parallel the PC's mind well enough to figure out what is happening with the bank in front of you. That is plenty to confront and handle.
Therefore training is a vital part of becoming an OT. Thus, in the short run, many are called, but few are chosen, though eventually all can make it by the training route.