Auditing Pitfalls: How to Avoid

by Pierre Ethier, Canada
THE PRACTITIONER OR craftsman who
repeatedly violates the proven fundamentals of
his or her discipline, is in the same position as the
individual who is actually ignorant of the primary
axioms or laws upon which it is based. Except
when dealing with the simplest of cases,
they will be fumbling in the dark, and their results
will be guided by chance rather than by a
well-mapped course of action.
This is especially pertinent when auditing and
programming cases.
In the Church, disregarding technical rules has
always been known as “out-tech” and as a KSW
(Keep Scientology Working) violation. For many
years the Church treated perceived offenders as
“heretics”, but current Church hardliners now
view them much like devout Christians view
devil worshippers.
Applying auditing correctly has nothing to do
with those fanatical views. It should simply be
done right because it is not only the professional
thing to do but it fully aligns with the notion of
“best practice” in technical and business fields.
Some may be tempted to dismiss such pompous
labeling as a purely dogmatic approach. The
truth is that neither the engineer who chooses
to disregard the law of gravity when building a
house or a bridge, nor the practitioner who
elects to transgress the auditor’s code, will ever
succeed.
Rather than untangling a case into its fundamental
simplicity, such an auditor will complicate
it and even add his own practices as an
aberrant element within the pc’s case. The same
can be said of the auditor who disregards the
auditing comm cycle, who does not apply PTS
tech when addressing PTSes, or who fails to
complete cycles of actions by his reckless
mixture of rundowns and repairs.
How to find one’s way through the maze of questionable solutions
available in the field.
March 2008
In the engineering sciences, these outnesses
would be akin to jury-rigging1 a contraption
expecting it to function in such a state indefinitely,
simply because it has managed to hold
itself together for a while.
Extraordinary solutions for ordinary problems
A Free Zone practitioner who shall remain
nameless, once told me that he never did correction
lists on cases that needed them because
“They didn’t work.” If it is true that some people
have gone overboard by using correction lists at
the drop of a hat, correction lists are nevertheless
very valuable tools.
I can conclusively state after more than 25,000
hours spent auditing pcs through the better
part of four decades, that when judiciously applied,
correction lists not only will work but
crack cases; expert auditors have been known to
crack cases completely using nothing but correction
lists. The number of cases I have been able
to personally crack without needing to resort to
other tools is probably north of a thousand.
Hubbard wrote numerous issues in the 1970s
explaining how indifferent or inadequate TRs
were responsible for lack of results, or reads, on
correction lists. Decades of personal experience
picking up the failed cases from less experienced
practitioners, have fully confirmed that
Hubbard’s statements on the matter are deeply
rooted in sound experience.
Rather than addressing a usual TR problem
with its obvious remedy, the above -mentioned
practitioner’s solution was to resort to the
unusual solution of coffee shop auditing, which
he apparently still does. There, unfettered by
the restraints imposed upon him by the auditor’s
code, or by a model session, he would end
up steering the cases where he wanted them to
go, which invariably included an uncompromising
allegiance to himself and a vicious attack on any
perceived enemies.
Accustomed to the endless and uncontrolled
ramblings stemming from dozens of coffee shop
sessions, his pcs could be easily recognized by
their compulsive habits of discussing ad nauseam
in every forum, the technicalities and detailed
responses of their cases to anyone who
would or wouldn’t listen. It never dawned on
any of those individuals that the long-held datum
about pcs rehashing their sessions is simply
a form of self-auditing, the byproduct of
unflat processes. The only handling they needed
was, of course, to flatten anything unflat, instead
of continually seeking new processes to
satisfy their “lack of results.”
Failure to recognize and handle PTS phenomena
In completely different circles, there is a theory
going around and shared by a number of individuals,
that deeply hidden and intricate
conspiracies are the only things that are truly
wrong, not only in the entire universe but in life
as well.
Judging not just from the abandonment of
numerous tech basics by both the creators and
the proponents of that theory, but largely
through entirely subjective notions that they
propagated under the label of “obvious facts”,
these theories closely follow the tenets of superstition,
where explanations for life occurrences
and society happenings are explained through
involved mystical ideas rather than through
observable facts, reason, and knowledge.
old mystical ideas at the root of such theories is
Manichaeism, the doctrine of the endless battle
between the dark forces of evil against those
promoting enlightenment.
Whether evil goes by the name of Satan (Judeo-
Christian faiths), Xenu (Neo-Scientology) or the
“Evil Emperor” (Jedi — Star Wars religion), the
principle remains exactly the same.
One can find evil almost anywhere. Sometimes
its source cannot be identified clearly. At other
times, complex or unpredictable factors conspire
to cause unfortunate happenstances. There are
times when the most down-to-earth emotions of
greed, revenge, envy or sloth are simply responsible
for disaster. Just as a case is made of many

1 1. to assemble quickly or from whatever is at hand, esp. for temporary use: to jury-rig stage lights using automobile headlights.

2. Nautical. to replace (a rudder, mast, etc.) with a jury-rig: We jury-rigged a
fore-topmast after the storm had snapped ours off. from dictionary.com
different components and has more than a single
evil identity affecting it, so does life.
Primitive man explained thunder and lightning
through magic and spirits. Conversely, a lack of
understanding of the true science of dealing
with the case condition of being the adverse effect
of things (PTS technology), can lead an
otherwise knowledgeable individual completely
astray in his search for the cause of it.
An individual becomes the adverse effect of
something (PTS) when a person or thing in his
present time environment is perceived as
preventing him from having things and
enforcing things he or she does not want. In
other words, the phenomenon of PTS has mostly
to do with the individual’s own reaction to stimuli,
rather than by the actions of the perceived
source of suppression.
To the degree that someone is out of present
time and stuck on the remote track, he or she
will misconceive long gone oppressors as if they
were actually part of present time. The reactive
mind associates its content (painful events and
memories) with oppressors and enemies.
Whereas the number of available past oppressors
(suppressive) remains relatively low in the
average case, those with a significant amount of
entheta on their case will have far more oppressors
in restimulation. Because the structure of
the reactive mind is to forbid and to avoid, the
tendency of such cases will be to transpose those
past oppressors into present-time individuals.
This is why “Search and Discovery” gets done
and works so well. It is an exact process
designed to identify past suppressives so that
they no longer remain confused with people who
make up the individual’s present-time environment.
For individuals who are highly charged or
restimulated, either through a chronic case condition
or mis-auditing, the number of suppressives
from the track can exceed the number of
people in present time. This in turn will cause
the case to try to supplement real people with
aliens, secret agents, intergalactic invaders and
even “voices beyond this realm.”
Extensive data on PTS technology not found
anywhere else, was released during the last
technical course Hubbard personally instructed,
in October and November 1975 in Daytona
Beach. A number of observations made by John
McMaster that had been disregarded in the
original PTS technology research from 1965
were quietly incorporated into it.
The content of those 29 lectures recorded in
master tapes which this author listened to, crystallized
PTS tech into a highly workable and
final handling. It will be the subject of a
subsequent article.
To summarize: PTS is a problem which exists
primarily in the individual’s universe. By
correctly addressing the exact problem on all
flows and its prior confusion all the way down to
its root, one can blow permanently and forever
any PTS condition.
Therefore any suppressive, no matter how
powerful he may have been, can and should be
blown in a finite number of steps and be gone
for good, instead of coming back level after level
for handling, which is a bad indicator (recurring
items).
False validation
The auditor (and in solo auditing, his case
supervisor),must be strictly bound by the Auditor’s
Code.
An inexpert auditor or case supervisor can,
wittingly or unwittingly, falsely validate
fanciful notions of the pc.
Falsely validating entirely fanciful notions
either like those described above or new ones, is
the surest way to make them stick and anchor
them as “stable data.”

Doing the opposite is not any better. It is known
as invalidation and is certain to eventually lead
to a strong rejection of the auditor by the pc. It
will deteriorate a case even faster than false
validation ever could.
In cases when the inexpertness or ignorance of
the auditor and/or C/S has caused the validation
of those fantasies, the case can be expected to
become more and more frantic in asserting
those views, until proper action is undertaken
to actually destimulate a case that the previous
auditor and case supervisor have over-restimulated.

Predilection for the exotic and the unusual
It is a commonly held belief by Homo Sapiens
that unusual situations should be addressed
through unusual solutions.
Hubbard said it perhaps a thousand times: “In
the presence of the unusual: Do the usual.” The
reason he had to say it so often is obviously
because the datum is instinctively violated not
only by neophyte auditors, but by many experienced
ones as well.
Perhaps when the science behind the phenomena
one seeks to address is largely unknown, doing
the unusual may be viewed as desirable.
However in the case of auditing and programming
cases, it has been my experience that the
relatively small set of rules and laws established
many years ago, were sufficient to handle
all situations that are likely to come to hand.
When those laws appear inadequate, it is typically
because a lack of expertise leads to an
inability to design a solution specifically
designed for the case at hand. A surprisingly
high number of people seem to realize that
whereas the number of governing laws and
rules are very small, the actual manner in
which to apply those few principles and the
number of possible auditing commands is
nearly infinite. Such misconceptions inevitably
stem from those who have failed to acquire a
conceptual understanding of the technology, or
who have failed to apply it exactly. To escape
the confusion they find themselves immersed
in, they will settle for a stable datum typically
in the form of a set of arbitrary rules and robotic
patter. Originators of new “stable data” seek to
supplant conceptual understanding of the technology.
This is where the Church under the guidance of
its new leader is largely failing: they have
confused exact application with rote application
and appear to think that only if they can maintain
complete control of both auditor and pc,
will they succeed. They fail to realize that the
end product of such a policy is a form of slavery
which is the exact opposite of what the state of
OT stands for.
Being creative in applying exactly a finite number
of laws can be observed in the field of engineering,
namely the design of automobile
engines. There are a very small number of
physical laws involved in the creation of an
internal combustion engine like those used in a
car: they are primarily the laws of thermodynamics
and those of inertia. Yet literally
thousands of vastly different engine designs
have made their way into automobiles in the
last century: 4,5,6,8,12 and 16 cylinders;
opposed, V-shaped, inline, star-shaped; valves
on top, on the side, 2,4,6 or 8 valves per cylinder,
2,4 or even 5 stroke engines; and let’s not forget
radically different designs such as the rotary
engine and the turbine. All those engines use
the very same laws.
Any problems encountered during the manufacture
of an engine are not addressed by dreaming
alternative theories to Newton’s laws of physics
or Einstein’s theory of relativity, but through
clever designs anchored in reality that make
use of all the known laws of physics to their
fullest extent. The same principles apply very
much to auditing.
The unprofessional attitude
The poorly trained auditor skimps over the
surface of a rundown, does not get the pc to
really look because of indifferent TRs, fractured
communication cycle, or poor session control,
misruns the processes and dutifully reports: “It
didn’t work.”
Over and over I had to take pcs from auditors
making such claims. Yet again and again the
actions that were abandoned (Q&Aed) by the
previous auditor because it “didn’t work,” are
the ones I used to crack the case and get them
flying again. Is it magic? Is it because I have a
secret and mystical line to Hubbard or a supernatural
being? Hardly! The answer lies in
having a professional attitude.
Some auditors are known for their “Anythinggoes”
attitude. In their franticness to throw
away the yoke of authoritarianism, they have
disregarded the datum that with freedom,
responsibilities come as well.
On most of them, it never dawned that the
hardships they encounter in finding clients and
repeated business, comes from the lack of confidence
inspired by their unprofessional
demeanor.

To quote Hubbard on the subject: “It isn’t magic
or luck that makes the professional. It’s hard
won know-how carefully applied. A true professional
may do things pretty easily from all
appearances, but he is actually taking care with
each little bit that it is just right.”
At the antipodes of being a robot are the auditor
and the case supervisor who have truly
mastered their art. Not at all rote, completely
spontaneous yet adhering to the rules of the
technology with uncanny precision, such
experts daily perform the ultimate act of creativity,
by designing and applying in a thousand
different variations the handful of principles
they have learned so well to free people.
Techniques derived from subjective experience
versus empirical research
A number of people in the FZ have taken upon
themselves to “research the OT levels”.
The vast majority did little more than deeply
examine their own case in search of a solution to
their unwanted idiosyncrasies. In other words,
it was a sophisticated form of self-auditing.
They would have been much better off if they
had allowed another auditor to put them on the
cans and run them on questions like: “What is
self-auditing a solution to?”; “What confusion or
upset took place prior to your desire to selfaudit?”;
or “What would you like handled in
auditing?”
There are numerous perils in taking the road of
digging in one’s case for research. The first one
should be quite obvious: there is no evidence
that the answers and cognitions obtained are in
any way universal or even applicable to a large
number of people. Independent research by
carefully observing and monitoring auditors, is
the only proven long term successful method.
The second problem with the approach takes
place because one is both auditor and pc, and so
it becomes impossible to entirely separate both
hats. Consequently, case evaluation of the pc in
session is unavoidable.
Last and definitely not least by a long shot, is
that the reactive mind is full of false memories
and misdirectors.
Anyone investigating the whole track on
himself will sooner or later collide with the
Helatrobus or Heaven Implants. Those implants
are possibly the most vicious and deceiving
implants ever conceived on the time track. They
are directly responsible for religious fervor and
fanaticism and for many of the religious notions
involving angels, heaven, and the devil found on
this planet.
To render those memories inaccessible, the
track in those implants has been thoroughly
grouped and a myriad of false dates have been
implanted as part of the final package. To
further compound the confusion, the concept of
a cyclic track was introduced, along with the
idea that incidents and universes repeat each
other over and over. It even lists the number of
prior universes as ten thousands. The number
10,000 (ten thousands) appears prominently in
those implants and is associated with the
concept of godliness, perfection and infinity.
Most “researchers” who collide with the implant
actually fail to recognize it as such, because
imbedded deep at its core are the ideas that it
contains the “Secrets of the Universe” and is
“unbelievable but true”. These implants are
designed to instill fervor and fanaticism in
those who contact them because of their extensive
“manic content.” (In other words, they are
highly complimentary of the individual, as long
as he accepts the false ideas herein and seeks to
make him feel powerful, if he accepts its false
memories and ideas as genuine).
The ancient world appears to have already
collided with it. From ideal armies of ten thousands
(Xenophon and the Army of the Ten
Thousands), to the Egyptian Isis referred to as
the “Goddess of the Ten Thousand Names”.
During the Middle Ages a number of Christian
scholars were even professing that God had
created heaven 10,000 years earlier and populated
it with 10,000 angels. Even the Kamikaze
War cry “Banzai” actually comes from the blessing
given Emperors in antiquity: meaning: (May He
live) “Ten thousand years”.
Hubbard collided with the heaven implants
during his 1963 solo research and even wrote a
bulletin to tell the tale. It starts with the
tongue-in-cheek phrase: “I have been to
Heaven.” He even admitted confusion regarding
the dates and contents for quite a while, as he
attributed various dates to some of its contents
that took years to eventually correct.

One barely dares to speculate the insanity that
would have become part of his teachings, if
Hubbard had interpreted the contents of those
implants at face value instead of recognizing
them as implantations and false memories.
Unworkable or boggy techniques
Thousands of techniques have been developed
in auditing. Many are still used today. A few
were short-lived because they were too unpredictable
or did not function well.
At this writing, there exists a technique entirely
developed in the Free Zone that advocates the
unusual solution of indoctrinating a being
mid-process by reading some sort of code or set
of rules when the auditor is unable to reach the
end phenomenon of the process. Failure to reach
an end phenomenon, assuming the process is
workable to begin with, has two and only two
possible causes: the process is still unflat,
meaning the same process (not a different one)
must be flattened, or there is some form of
bypassed charge preventing the release. This is
a very fundamental technical point, not
invented by me. The entire Case Supervisor
Series is devoted around these facts. Upsets,
rudiments, and overruns can cause bypassed
charge. There are hundreds of other reasons:
hence the need for assessments and lists. Some
auditors with a questionable grasp of fundamentals
appear to confuse the handling of
bypassed charge which only addresses getting
rudiments indicating charge and getting off
considerations, with major new processes. In
Scientologese this is known under the name of
“Q and A”, or a failure to complete a cycle of
action. That many unsupervised auditors have
gotten away with it for years has never made it
the right thing to do. It has merely confirmed
them in their own sloppiness in the same way
as the reckless or drunk driver gleefully ignores
the rules of the road for years and comes to a
most unpleasant and abrupt stop one day.
First of all, to be workable, a technique needs to
be in agreement with the fundamental rules of
auditing. Second, during routine auditing, it
should work at least 90% of the time without
having to repair it. It is a very poor technique
that only works 50% of the time or less and
requires a complex set of remedies to make it
work. Such a technique is simply ill-designed
and most likely was never based on sound
technical principles to begin with. Yet, among
techniques developed after 1982, such abound,
both in the Church and in the Free Zone, and
many have a fervent number of adepts who
blindly swear by one or the other.
Summary
These are some of the numerous pitfalls that
face the person who is looking for answers. It is
the hope of the author that those who read this
article will use their discernment and the advice
I give them here so that they can choose a road
that is fully compatible with getting more into
present time, and hence more able, more aware,
and more successful, instead of getting bogged
down on the remote track.
Contrary to Rome, all self-improvement roads
do not lead to the state of OT. Many lead to a
quiet dead-end. Some end in an abyss. A very
few actually lead to higher states of Beingness

Advertisements