Scientology pages index  |  Contact

Analysis of HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up”  or      A prelude to a deliberate ‘change of direction’? (2) (Who wrote HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up”?)

(to other Scientology pages)

1) General overview/introduction:   Mission statement, overview, present-day Scientology Introduction to Scientology and LRH Scientology in media and Internet (+ forums, Wikipedia) Scientology: Its true history exposed? Scientology Q&A (FAQ) External links Materials want list Recommended list of materials 2) Responses (with annotations): Appreciative responses to my pages Critique received (1) from churchgoing Scientologists Critique received (2) from out-of-church Scientologists Critique received (3) from anti-Scientologists 3) Topics of particular interest: (a): General topics Story of Mary Sue Hubbard Holy Scriptures vs Scientology LRH vs Dictionaries LRH vs theory of evolution LRH's works of fiction (b): Organizational topics A printing history of the materials of Scientology Scientology Membership: HASI vs IAS LRH vs pricing policies The copyrights issue and licensing (c): Technical topics History of Grade Chart: a) General History of Grade Chart: b) Detailed ‘Clear’ defined NED for OTs The ‘Primary Rundown’ 4) Controversial topics: Mistaken ideas of ‘Ethics’ clarified The Fair Game Law Practice of Disconnection Security Checking Freeloaders vs Ex-staff members The ‘Rehabilitation Project Force’ (RPF) 5) Changes in the flow of ‘information’: (a): Alterations (LRH or non-LRH?) LRH vs Alterations Non-LRH turns into LRH? & Proposal to solution The ‘Cramming Series’ - LRH or not LRH? Based on LRH publications (b): General overview LRH vs A New Order (introduction) → Administrative and organizational matters Setup of the printed materials (1973-86) The RTRC, the unit that wrote LRH issues (1973-82) The dawning of RTC and new management (1982-83) → Technical matters Introduction to the event of losing a Bridge) Analysis of HCOB “Tech Correction Round-up” Lost Bridge: Tech changes during 1978-82 The history of the original OT VIII ‘Golden Age of Tech’ (GAT) analysis Drilling in Scientology (c): The matter of David Mayo Story of David Mayo ‘SO ED 2344 Int’ analysis Training drills (TRs) Mayo reference list 6) Conspiracies - In L. Ron Hubbard's footsteps Scientology vs a New World Order →Where is L. Ron Hubbard? (chronology of Scn history) Whereabouts of L. Ron Hubbard chronology The era of adoration; Presentation of L. Ron Hubbard L. Ron Hubbard into artistry: Music & Film 7) Scientology under attack (a): A premeditated series of occurrences? (’80s conspiracy) Introduction & Ron DeWolf Gerry Armstrong (‘affirmations’) Russell Miller ( ‘Bare-Faced Messiah’) A religion created for the money? (b): Battles fought and the internet (2016- ) Leah Remini: Scientology and the Aftermath (TV show) planned

>> Do you want to help with preserving the original technology? <<  Consult my want list here!

Please note that words with an asterisk (*) are defined at the bottom of this page! Only first appearances are indicated.

A prelude to technical and administrative reversals - The year 1977  (page 2)

Go to “Analysis of HCOB 24 Jan 77 ‘Tech Correction Round-up’” index page

Section: “J: INCOMPLETE AUDITING FOLDERS”

Show full text of HCOB section (for reference)

Hide full text of HCOB section J: INCOMPLETE AUDITING FOLDERS §J:1  | For some time Word Clearers, Sec Checkers, Ethics Officers and Cramming Officers have neglected to include their worksheets in the pc’s actual folder. §J:2 | This causes considerable difficulty for a Case Supervisor since the person may have wrong lists in “Why Finding,” may have R/Sed on a Sec Check, may have had incomplete or incorrect Word Clearing and other tech outnesses in between regular sessions. Where these folder omissions occur an FESer (Folder Error Summary maker) is often prevented from finding where the case went wrong. §J:3 | Then there is the matter of no folders at all. Somebody has lost them or mislaid them, yet some auditor needs them desperately to find out lists or to actually verify grades attained. The preservation and availability of auditing folders to the next auditor or a Case Supervisor years up the track is of very great importance. §J:4 | Accordingly HCO PL 28 Oct 1976 and HCOB 28 Oct 1976, C/S Series 98 (which are both the same equal texts) were written by me to remedy these very dangerous tech outnesses.

In §J:1 it proposes: “For some time Word Clearers, Sec Checkers, Ethics Officers and Cramming Officers have neglected to include their worksheets in the pc's actual folder.”.

Section: “K: FALSIFYING AUDITOR REPORTS”

Show full text of HCOB section (for reference)

Hide full text of HCOB section K: FALSIFYING AUDITOR REPORTS §K:1  | Along with missing reports it was found that there had been some difficult situations created by the falsification of auditing reports. §K:2 | From the small matter of saying that the TA was at 3.0 when actually is at 4.5 when the F/N occurred (thus obscuring the fact that false TA had to be handled), up to the very large crime of faking the fact that certain processes had been run when they had not just to get a completion or a bonus and up to falsifying the data or text which the pc gave, this matter of false Auditor Reports can cause enormous amounts of trouble. §K:3 | The consequences and detection of the falsification of auditing reports is now contained in HCO Policy Letter 26 Oct 1976 Issue 1, the same text issued as HCOB 26 Oct 1976 Issue 1, C/S Series 97. This makes even the minor falsification of an auditing report a matter of Comm Ev and, if the crime is proven beyond reasonable doubt, there can result a cancellation of all certificates and awards, a declare and an expulsion order. §K:4 | If you think this is unnecessarily harsh, think of the poor pc.

Here the problem proposed is (§K:1): “it was found that there had been some difficult situations created by the falsification of auditing reports.”. This seems to be a situation that is more serious as falsifying reports gives you wrong data to work with. It means that if you base an evaluation on these, that you are not likely to end up doing the right next process. But then, this would be found out quickly as well! The wrong process will give you bad indicators from the preclear. The question to ask however is why would someone actually do that? You see, why are you working with Dianetics and Scientology technology? Why are you there? There is also the point that sooner or later those persons will be found out, probably sooner if the people in their surrounding are alert enough, and they should be.

In §K:4 it is justified by saying: “If you think this is unnecessarily harsh, think of the poor pc.”. And that would be sufficient reason to jump with full force on any minor misconduct? When “I have concluded man cannot be trusted with justice.”  LRH  (from HCO PL 6 Oct 70 III “Ethics Penalties”). See, it will be misused. And if it be true that the offender “is usually found to be a suppressive with abundant R/Ses and evil intentions”, then will one find just minor misconduct? Stiffening ethics procedures will not remedy the problem obviously. The minor offenders can be dealt with very easily with finding and handling their misunderstandings.

Section: “L: CHECKLIST FOR FESers”

Show full text of HCOB section (for reference)

Hide full text of HCOB section L: CHECKLIST FOR FESers §L:1  | It can happen that a pc is taken up into new grades without having completed earlier, more basic grades and without being set up for the later grade. This can result in somebody going through several grades just to cure a mild somatic or a PTP. It can also throw a pc in over his head. §L:2 | For a long time there have been checklists showing the requirements for most major grades. §L:3 | A recent instance of a pc going all the way through to OT III who had not completed anything caused me to investigate the reasons behind this. §L:4 | It was discovered that very few Case Supervisors ever check a folder to find out if the pc has actually made the grades lower than the one that he is about to be put on. §L:5 | A further check showed that few C/Ses ever looked up the earlier history of the case and this resulted in pcs being put up through levels for which they have not been set up and past levels they have not made. §L:6 | A further investigation showed that these checklists were not in existence for every grade and action. §L:7 | It became obvious that the people who should be using these checklists would be the Folder Error Summary auditors. These FESers are the only ones who thoroughly go through the folders and Case Supervisors depend on them. Thus if the FESer is not required to verify whether the pc has properly attained the level he is about to go onto and if he has been set up for the level, then nobody is going to check this over and a great many pcs are going to be audited on skipped gradients without set-ups and will get into difficulty. §L:8 | I have ordered that checklists be made up for FESers to use for each major grade so that they can check off the requisites for each grade and thus handle this out gradient situation. These checklists are being worked on at this time and will be issued in the near future. §L:9 | In the meantime it is the duty of the FESer to indicate whether or not the pc has actually reached each grade to which he has attested and whether or not he is properly set up for the grade he is about to be embarked upon.

“An FES (Folder Error Summary) is a summary of auditing errors in a folder and on a Pc's case not corrected at the time the summary is done.”
(from BTB 3 Nov 72R “The PC Folder and Its Contents”)

This means that in principle an FES presupposes errors having been made. The situation proposed here is to positively establish (§L:9) “whether or not the pc has actually reached each grade to which he has attested and whether or not he is properly set up for the grade he is about to be embarked upon.”. In §L:3-5 we are informed of 3 such incidences where things had gone wrong because of failing to do so. Then §L:6 finds that “checklists were not in existence for every grade and action”.

Anyhow that task is herewith given to the FESer that (§L:7) “are the only ones who thoroughly go through the folders”. Actually it would suffice to have just included a summary of those actions that were completed. If such a summary was missing, then the C/S and/or the auditor could investigate and find out why they are not there! But you are not going to embark on some level or grade if a foregoing lower level or grade completion is lacking!

As a sidenote we see also being released HCOB 8 Mar 77R (Revised 7 Apr 77) “Power Checklist”. Written (“assisted”) by Paulette Ausley (noted as “LRH Tech Expeditor”, initials “PA”). The signatory of this HCOB does indicate a coauthorship with John Eastment (noted as “CS-4/5”), but odd enough it is lacking his composer initials. Today it appears not being in use, although thus far I have been unable to track what reference cancelled it. Reason for its discontinuation is likely due to the probable sole authorship of infamous Paulette Ausley (see at “Section: ‘I: FALSE TA’”).

Section: “M: AUDITOR RECOVERY”

Show full text of HCOB section (for reference)

Hide full text of HCOB section M: AUDITOR RECOVERY §M:1  | It can happen here and there that an auditor who has been auditing eases off and ceases to audit. §M:2 | There are various reasons for this. One of the common ones is a skipped gradient in his training. Another one is misunderstood words and the commonest one is overts of omission or commission on the subject of auditing or pcs which have not been handled. §M:3 | An LRH ED 176RB INT originally issued on 24 April 1972 was unfortunately revised 2 or 3 times by other people and lost its punch. §M:4 | I reworked this and restored it to its earlier form on 7 Nov 1976 and this is available as LRH ED 176RB INT. The investigation and reissue being assisted by CS-7. §M:5 | It is available in this form and in the near future will be issued as an HCOB.

Situation (§M:1): “It can happen here and there that an auditor who has been auditing eases off and ceases to audit.”. Reason provided (§M:2): (1) “skipped gradient in his training”; (2). “misunderstood words”; and (3): “overts of omission or commission on the subject of auditing or pcs”.

In §M:3 it talks about an LRH ED that “was unfortunately revised 2 or 3 times by other people and lost its punch”.

This all gives us the following chronological publication track:

Anyone have a copy of either the R, RA and/or RB version, and a copy of the HCOB 27 Jan 77 (Cancelled 5 Dec 77) for me? Please contact me.

Section: “N: STUDY TECH”

Show full text of HCOB section (for reference)

Hide full text of HCOB section N: STUDY TECH §N:1  | During an investigation of pricing I discovered that “The Student Hat” had disappeared from use and in its place had been put an optional Basic Study Manual. The fact is that the Basic Study Manual has its own uses and is very valuable but it does not begin to replace The Student Hat. §N:2 | This meant actually that study tech had more or less disappeared in Academies and was not in general use. §N:3 | The actions taken were to make The Student Hat mandatory on a one-time basis before the next major course a person took and to include it free as a bonus to the person taking that course. §N:4 | The Student Hat has been restored in totality as a requisite for study tech. This will make study much more positive and much faster. §N:5 | The Basic Study Manual was put forward sometime ago as a means of getting staffs hatted on their hat materials and as a fast method of getting people reading the materials of their posts. I suppose that is how it drifted over onto major courses, where it has no business. §N:6 | Thus The Student Hat is back full force and if there are any blown students around you should realize that the reason for their blow is either lack of study tech or undisclosed overts. The thing to do is to get them back and push them through The Student Hat so they can win at their studies and get their overts off so they can look their fellow man in the eye. §N:7 | There has been another training outness found which I will mention in passing. In some interneships the entire Qual staff of the org has been employed in checking out students. Actually such checkouts are done by the students themselves, on each other where starrates are required in interneships. §N:8 | It has also been found that twinning on theory occasionally creeps back in. People have not noticed that twinning on theory, meaning two students always study together, went out many years ago and has been cancelled. It makes a noisy classroom and prevents students from getting through their courses rapidly. Twinning on theory sets up too many difficulties such as the loss of one’s twin by reason of graduation or transfer, being sent to Cramming, an odd number of people on the course so that one is without a twin and so on. §N:9 | Practical is another matter. In practical drilling is done on the twin basis. §N:10 | The theory and practical are never in the same room; they must be in different rooms. The theory room must be very, very quiet where a student can concentrate and the practical room must be so situated as to allow students to make noise. If any Academy has a noisy theory classroom or if the Academy is difficult to study in, this is probably what is in violation: probably the twinning is going on in theory or the theory rooms are noisy. Only a practical room can be made noisy. §N:11 | The two issues (putting twinning in on theory) have now been revised and cancelled. They are HCOB 26 Nov 71, Tape Course Series 10, W/Cing Series 26 “HANDLING MISUNDERSTOOD WORDS ON TAPE RECORDED MATERIALS,” which has been revised and cancelled by BTB 26 Nov 71RA (Tape Course Series 8, W/C Series 26RA) of same title (Tech Volume IX, page 440). HCOB 7 Feb 72 Issue 11, W/Cing Series 31, “METHOD 3 WORD CLEARING BY THE STUDENT’S TWIN” has been revised and cancelled by BTB 7 Feb 1972RA Issue II, W/Cing Series 31RA “METHOD 3 WORD CLEARING” (Tech Volume IX, page 448). §N:12 | The main point is you want a quiet and orderly theory training room and put the noisy demo and practical actions elsewhere. And also don’t hang up people on theory because they lose their twins. Practical twins are highly interchangeable.

• ‘Primary Rundown’, a forgotten tech

The situation laid out (§N:1): “During an investigation of pricing I discovered that ‘The Student Hat’ had disappeared from use and in its place had been put an optional Basic Study Manual. The fact is that the Basic Study Manual has its own uses and is very valuable but it does not begin to replace The Student Hat.”. Resulting in (§N:2): “This meant actually that study tech had more or less disappeared in Academies and was not in general use.”.

Alright, thus study tech disappeared because of The Student Hat not being a prerequisite of courses. And the Basic Study Manual was not deemed being adequate enough.

Per these tables it does not seem be that the Student Hat would have been that much in use prior to 1976. Noteworthy is that prior to the issuance of the January 1975 Grade Chart there is no prerequisite even listed for these courses. The claim per §N:1 as if “‘The Student Hat’ had disappeared from use and in its place had been put an optional Basic Study Manual.”, does not appear to hold up very well per these tables.

Mind that the Student Hat materials primarily date back to 1964, at which time the lectures –that were later made part of the Student Hat course– were given. These materials were part of the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course* (SHSBC).

	“STUDY TECH AND STAFF TRAINING
	The Student Hat is suspended as a requisite for staff courses for staff.
	The Study Tech requirements for staff are the Applied Scholastics Basic Study Manual and Method 1 with each word cleared to F/N. The Primary RD is not a prerequisite for any staff training course including the OEC*.”

	“ACADEMY TRAINING
	The Primary RD is suspended as a prerequisite for all Academy Courses. The only prerequisites are the Applied Scholastics Basic Study Manual, unless the student has already done a non-Superliterate Student Hat or PRD and Method 1 for Level 0-4 students with each word fully cleared to F/N.”

The Student Hat is only referred to in the first selection that talks about staff. The Academy Training only names the Primary Rundown (PRD) as being suspended there. This does confirm that what was earlier found in those other 2 tables. These “staff courses” are given more weight in this text than “Academy Courses”.

There is an obvious irony that surfaces when §N:5 notes: “The Basic Study Manual was put forward sometime ago as a means of getting staffs hatted on their hat materials and as a fast method of getting people reading the materials of their posts. I suppose that is how it drifted over onto major courses, where it has no business.”. We do find inconsequences here!

Either way HCO PL 31 Aug 74 II “Fast Flow Training Reinstated” does suspend all these things and focuses entirely on the Basic Study Manual (BSM), and it may have been (and probably is), the reference (or at least the action) that this section in HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up” refers to. Although it does not mention this HCO PL. Which is odd as this reference was actually signed by L. Ron Hubbard only to have it a bit over 2 years later cancelled/replaced by BPL 18 Oct 76 “Successful Training Lineup” because so this BPL states it “was written for LRH and not by him.”. Meaning it was falsely attributed to L. Ron Hubbard.

	“STAFF TRAINING AND HATTING
	The only prerequisite for Staff Hatting is BSM done per the checksheet.”

	“[ACADEMY TRAINING]
	The prerequisites for Major Courses and Academy training are Student Hat and Method 1 Word Clearing. BSM as an Academy prerequisite is abolished.” (from BPL 18 Oct 76 “Successful Training Lineup”)

 
‘Primary Rundown’, a forgotten tech

The remainder of the section (§N:7-12) addresses matters that are pretty straightforward and I don't have much to say about them. Except that (§N:8) “twinning on theory” does not have to be noisy (you can just give each other checkouts and such), and you can always move to the practical room as well. Further this can speed up your study, in particular if you are the slower student.

Section: “O: PROFESSIONAL RATES”

Show full text of HCOB section (for reference)

Hide full text of HCOB section O: PROFESSIONAL RATES §O:1  | It was found in some cases that pcs would enroll on courses and then never take them just so they could have professional rates in their auditing. §O:2 | This not only denied them the training they paid for but it was also making organizations short of auditors. §O:3 | Accordingly HCO PL 13 Nov 1976 was issued which clarified “professional rates” which makes it necessary for an auditor to be fully classed in the class of that org from which he is seeking service in order to qualify for a 50% professional discount in auditing. This does not apply to his family. §O:4 | What’s the matter with becoming an auditor? There are 2 or 3 billion pcs out there and only a few of us auditors. Have a heart and also lend a hand. Furthermore how do you know what good auditing is unless you’re trained?

Situation proposed (§O:1): “It was found in some cases that pcs would enroll on courses and then never take them just so they could have professional rates in their auditing.”.

The solution forwarded (§O:3) involved the issuance of HCO PL 13 Nov 76 “Professional Rates” “which clarified ‘professional rates’ which makes it necessary for an auditor to be fully classed in the class of that org from which he is seeking service in order to qualify for a 50% professional discount in auditing. This does not apply to his family.”.

Although I do not see how this would prevent people that “would enroll on courses and then never take them”? You still could do that! All that it changed was placing higher demands pending the organization where you were taking your services. Besides that HCO PL 13 Nov 76 “Professional Rates” caused various rules to be changed that had been in use during more than 10 years thus far. Suddenly they were not good enough anymore?

This new HCO PL abolished also the previous rule as laid out by HCO PL 29 May 62 “Professional Rates” that guided that: “Professional Rates for auditing in the HGC are hereby restored to the immediate families of professional auditors, as formerly.”. Which concerned: “normally it is taken to mean wife, husband or children of the professional auditor.”.Were these part of those people that “would enroll on courses and then never take them”? This family angle carries no relation to the problem proposed in §O:1. HCO PL 13 Nov 76 “Professional Rates” nor HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up” explain this or account for this change.

Section: “P: SENIOR CASE SUPERVISOR LINE”

Show full text of HCOB section (for reference)

Hide full text of HCOB section P: SENIOR CASE SUPERVISOR LINE §P:1  | It was recently found that the Senior Case Supervisor, in at least one large org, spent most of his time giving advice to executives on personnel case requirements for the crew! This is so far from the duties of a Snr C/S that the HCO PL outlining their duties has been rewritten and has become HCO PL of 26 Sept 1974R, revised and reissued 21 Jan 1977, which tells a Snr C/S in effect to look after the tech quality in his org. §P:2 | There is another modification on Snr Case Supervisors. Previously it was necessary for someone to go to a distant org and become a Class VIII before he could be qualified as the Snr Case Supervisor of an org. This is no longer necessary. HCO PL 24 Oct 76 Issue III modifies these requirements so that a Snr Case Supervisor can be trained by his local org. §P:3 | In this same Policy Letter the award of Dean of Technology is outlined. These would be gold certificate Case Supervisors. They are Saint Hill Special Briefing Course Class VIII Course auditors who have attained the case level to the class of his org and has a uniform record of case supervision. §P:4 | This general overhaul of the Snr Case Supervisor and his lines and duties is in effort to correct out tech and establish excellent tech in any org and its area.

It appears that the installment of the Senior Case Supervisor (Senior C/S) dates to September 1974. Its functions were not either of that of the ordinary Case Supervisor (C/S). Whereas the C/S was located in Division 4, Department 12: HGC Supervision Section, and the Senior C/S is located in Division 5, Department 15: Review Section. Its installment placed an additional hierarchical line as the Senior C/S “reviews and supervises C/Ses” (from HCO PL 26 Sept 74 “New Case Supervisor Postings”).

In §P:1 it reads: “It was recently found that the Senior Case Supervisor, in at least one large org, spent most of his time giving advice to executives on personnel case requirements for the crew! This is so far from the duties of a Snr C/S that the HCO PL outlining their duties has been rewritten and has become HCO PL of 26 Sept 1974R, revised and reissued 21 Jan 1977, which tells a Snr C/S in effect to look after the tech quality in his org.”.

I have not been able to consult the original version or the R-version. (If you have any of these please contact me!) For this reason I have not been able to verify in detail what changes had been made compared to the original release. The RA-version was noted to have been “Assisted by CS-4/5”, composer initials “JE”, and so we know this was John Eastment. According to the new signatory rules set up by HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up” (see at “Prologue found in this HCOB”: “Authorship designations”), this would indicate that John Eastment actually wrote it for which reason I would like to consult the original release of the HCO PL.

	“SENIOR CASE SUPERVISOR,
	1. the Senior C/S reviews and supervises C/Ses, handles bugged or red tabbed cases, sends C/Ses and auditors to Cramming, handles overloads while getting C/Ses trained, recruits C/Ses, sees that auditors are recruited and trained. (HCO PL 26 Sept 74)  2. Senior C/S handles bugged cases and very upper level actions and keeps the other C/Ses functioning well. He is the highest classed C/S in the org. He is responsible for proper handling and results on all cases. (This is a hat I usually wore in an area.) (HCO PL 25 Sept 74)”

Per the above entries his hat does not appear to be to have (§P:1) “spent most of his time giving advice to executives on personnel case requirements for the crew!”. For that reason it sounds here more like that this “Senior Case Supervisor, in at least one large org” had some misunderstandings about what he was supposed to do. In essence I am not quite clear on why that would require a rewrite of the HCO PL.

	“The Snr C/S is the full guarantor of the quality of the org's Tech, the full Training and Interning of its Technical personnel and the smoothness of all its Technical lines.
	The keynote of a Snr C/S is quality and HCOB tech.”

What else it added and/or changed I don't know.

Per §P:3 “Previously it was necessary for someone to go to a distant org and become a Class VIII before he could be qualified as the Snr Case Supervisor of an org.”. It is then ruled through the release of HCO PL 24 Oct 76 III “Senior Case Supervisor Requirements” that “Any and all of the ... training may be taken in his own org.”. I don't know actually where it was previously ruled that he had to go somewhere distant, but when I look at the listed requirements in this HCO PL these are no special courses that only could be done at some senior or other (distant) org. I am not really getting the point here. Then things are a bit unclear here as it says in §P:3 that the HCO PL “modifies these requirements”, but this reference makes no mention of a modification or cancellation of some other HCO PL or reference. So, where are these previous requirements listed?

It finally does claim in §P:4 that “This general overhaul of the Snr Case Supervisor and his lines and duties is in effort to correct out tech and establish excellent tech in any org and its area.”. I just wish to point out that this was already in working order prior to the installment of some Senior C/S. As I see it it adds a randomity in hierarchy that wasn't required before. So what called for it? In the final end it is all pending people, their morals and their skills if measures taken will result in success. This hierarchy was extended 4 years later with another installment, this time the position of Senior C/S International. During the early ’80s more and more hierarchy was placed onto the lines, and in present time that what used to be independent self-supporting local organizations are now flock that (has to) obey the littliest guideline issued by some International Management (located at great distance).

Section: “Q: INTERNESHIPS”

Show full text of HCOB section (for reference)

Hide full text of HCOB section Q: INTERNESHIPS §Q:1  | It was found that very few interneships were now being taught and an investigation undertaken by the Action Aide Flag Bureau at my orders, finally uncovered that interneship checksheets had been added to and added to and stirred about until they had become checksheets within checksheets, thus making interneships interminable. §Q:2 | As a result of this, a special mission was put on the job of reforming interneship checksheets. §Q:3 | These checksheets have now been issued and exist for every level as Board Policy Letters issued from 10 Nov 76 up through BPL 25 Nov 76 Issue 1. They have been greatly simplified and have made interneships into very worthwhile actions. §Q:4 | These new simplified interneship checksheets are in full use at this time. §Q:5 | Along with this interneship program, HCO Policy Letter of 25 Oct 1976 has been issued which requires that all past provisional certificates which have not been validated by an interneship and which are one year or more old from the date of course completion are cancelled. It states such students should be notified and should be enrolled on the interneship for the class. If a properly conducted interneship is satisfactorily completed, their permanent certificate may be reissued. §Q:6 | All of this is in an effort to get auditors straightened out, getting wins and making them really proficient and professional in all areas of the world.

• ‘Okay to Audit’ system, a ‘lost tech’?

Situation proposed (§Q:1): “It was found that very few interneships were now being taught and an investigation undertaken by the Action Aide Flag Bureau at my orders, finally uncovered that interneship checksheets had been added to and added to and stirred about until they had become checksheets within checksheets, thus making interneships interminable.”.
First it says “that very few interneships were now being taught” then “that interneship checksheets had been added to and added to and stirred about until they had become checksheets within checksheets”. So which is it, were they not being taught or were they being overtaught? Someone is not speaking very clearly here!

	“The auditor interneship checksheets are revised in November 1976 and the materials covered on the Qual OK to Audit Series checksheets were included in the applicable levels so that an interne wouldn't have to be doing checksheets within checksheets.
	Therefore completion of the Qual OK to Audit Series checksheets are no longer required to graduate from internships.
	BPL 8 November 1971RC Qual OK to Audit Series 5RA Internships - Electronic Attestation Form - TRs Training Checklist is cancelled as this is fully covered on the internship checksheets.
	The remaining Qual OK to Audit checksheets are of use in Qual when an auditor is in need of a retread on the skills by a particular checksheet.”

In §Q:1 it makes mention of that “an investigation undertaken by the Action Aide Flag Bureau”. The above BPL was written by Richard Sheehy in the capacity of the FMO 1709 I/C (Flag Mission Order 1709 In Charge).

It is probably rather noteworthy that this section in HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up” does not say a word about this. It's like as if it was all silently passed by. Instead it gave a first contradictive paragraph (§Q:1).

 
‘Okay to Audit’ system, a ‘lost tech’?

This Okay to Audit system was introduced by L. Ron Hubbard in HCOB 28 apr 71 “Okays to Audit in HGCs”. It says already in its first paragraph that “It is Mandatory that HGC auditors follow the ‘Okay to audit’ system. It is in addition to the required courses and any class, org or field experience.”   LRH. This probably would not have been without good reason! Its purpose was to achieve that “auditors will obtain many wins and greatly increased morale and” that “HGC quality will be improved.”   LRH. Giving the clear message that “There is no compromise with auditing quality.”   LRH. You can still consult this reference as it continues to be included even in the 1991 release of ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes as a valid HCOB. We even find an entry at Okay to Audit in its Index volume. It is not sure though what purpose it serves, as the Okay to Audit system got abolished, and this rather silently.

Unfortunately thus far I haven't been able to consult a single copy of any of these Okay to Audit checksheets. They are just no where to be found. For that reason I don't know exactly how they have been set up, if they were long or short, and all that. If you can help with this then please do so and contact me!
	‘Okay to Audit’ series of issues and related (1971-75)  (pop-up window)

Is the Okay to Audit system a ‘lost tech’? Question marks should be put at why HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up” displays such an obscurity about this Okay to Audit, it is not even mentioned by name. Is this a planned operation to get its use abolished? Then is it awkward that no Okay to Audit checksheet is to be found? In general checksheets are the things that are hardest to find. As far as I can determine it was somewhere about 1973-75 that it became a common practice that checksheets at their completion ended up in the students folder. Checksheets around that time started to say that. It was thus not kept by the student and in his study pack. Another probable explanation is that Okay to Audit checksheets remained a Cramming action and that all papers were kept there.

	“The Field Auditor has a right:  ...
	8.To respect for his certificates.
	9.To have and to hold his certificates without cancellation by anyone forever.”          LRH (from ‘PAB 112’, 15 May 57 “The Rights of the Field Auditor”, issued as policy in HCO PL 2 Oct 69 “same title”)

After all it doesn't say anything about provisional or permanent.

Section: “R: ILLEGAL PCs”

Show full text of HCOB section (for reference)

Hide full text of HCOB section R: ILLEGAL PCs §R:1  | It has occasionally happened that an auditor has had pushed off on him by persuasion or pressure, cases who should not have been accepted by the org. §R:2 | HCOB 6 Dec 1976 also HCO PL 6 Dec 76 (identical texts), make this a High Crime. §R:3 | Certain types of cases may not therefore be forced off on auditors by anyone, and anyone seeking to force such a pc upon an auditor against policy, is actionable by a Committee of Evidence.

With the release of HCOB/PL 6 Dec 76 “Illegal PCs, Acceptance of, High Crime Bulletin/PL” a new derogatorily term came into being. Now, when you go back to ’50s and you see what sort of persons were accepted for auditing, then why would these turn into Illegal PC's in 1976? And in fact miraculous results were gotten on many of these early bad shape cases. The HCOB confirms that: “It is not that such cases cannot in many cases be handled. It is that neither Scientology nor the org, but doctors and psychiatrists, have brought about the condition and such conditions are outside the zone of responsibility of the org.”.
One of the reasons to have this new HCOB issued was because it had happened in the past that some very bad case person did not get better, took his/her own life or something. Which in turn was used by the anti-Scientology propagandist to attack the subject itself in the media or other. Purposely not informing about the previous state of the person before he/she got into Scientology.

This is another of those references that were written “for the BOARDS OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY”.

Section: “S: EXPANDED GRADES BEING REDONE”

Show full text of HCOB section (for reference)

Hide full text of HCOB section S: EXPANDED GRADES BEING REDONE §S:1  | It has been found that some processes were left out of Expanded Grades 0 to IV and that in some cases these grades had been quickied. Therefore, all Expanded Grades checklists are being reissued and will contain more extensive processes. §S:2 | Until you have the new Expanded Grades checklists, the ones you are using are still OK.

Situation proposed (§S:1): “It has been found that some processes were left out of Expanded Grades 0 to IV and that in some cases these grades had been quickied. Therefore, all Expanded Grades checklists are being reissued and will contain more extensive processes.”.

Then in §S:2 it says: “Until you have the new Expanded Grades checklists, the ones you are using are still OK.”.

All that I can find is the following:

These will be the checklists that are being referred to. The incongruity here comes in the form that HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up” says the “checklists are being reissued”, however these BTBs listed here above don't give any data them being released (or re-released) because of named reason. As a side note these BTBs replace a previous series of BTBs that were issued as long back in time as 4 to 8 January 1972, although these were “Triples” processes, and not “Quads”.

I am unable to find any record of or actual copies from an additonally released series which these BTBs issued 15 November 1976 may have been replacing. Would this mean that the intention of HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up” was to replace the “Triples” processes with the “Quads”? If that is the case our HCOB certainly does not specify that!
Per the composer initials found on these BTBs this has been worked on by ‘JE’: John Eastment, ‘JG’: Julie Gillespie and ‘PD’: (a “FMO 1689 I/C” (Flag Mission Order #1689 In/Charge), name unknown), “Part E” notes instead the initials ‘RS’ which stands for Rick Sheehy.

Section: “T: REPAIR LIST REVISED”

Show full text of HCOB section (for reference)

Hide full text of HCOB section T: REPAIR LIST REVISED §T:1  | Through an oversight, an incomplete Board Technical Bulletin 11 Aug 1972RA revised 18 Dec 1974, C/S Series 83RA, was included on page 230 of Volume X of the HCOB Volumes. §T:2 | A far more extensive write-up, LRH ED 257 INT of 1 Dec 1974, existed which gave much more data and many more prepared lists as repair tools for the auditor. §T:3 | The LRH ED has now been issued as HCOB of 24 Oct 1976 C/S Series 96 “DELIVERY REPAIR LISTS.” §T:4 | Although this issue has been updated to some degree, there are still one or two repair lists omitted. Therefore, this is about to be issued again as C/S Series 96R, which will include the additional and valuable lists.

This section starts with to inform in §T:1 that “Through an oversight, an incomplete Board Technical Bulletin”, being BTB 11 Aug 72RA (Revised 18 Dec 74), C/S Series 83RA “Correction Lists”, had been “included on page 230 of Volume X of the HCOB Volumes.”.
Its place was taken by (§T:2) “A far more extensive write-up”, being ‘LRH ED 257 Int’, 1 Dec 74 “Delivery Repair Lists”, that “gave much more data and many more prepared lists as repair tools for the auditor.”.
Then §T:3 tells that this “LRH ED has now been issued as” HCOB 24 Oct 76, C/S Series 96 “Delivery Repair Lists”.
In §T:4 it informs that “there are still one or two repair lists omitted” which caused it to be reissued as HCOB 24 Oct 76R (Revised 10 Feb 77), C/S Series 96R “Delivery Repair Lists”.

A quick observation unveils: (1) that although HCOB 24 Oct 76 was factually replacing BTB 11 Aug 72RA, it was not until the release of HCOB 24 Oct 76RA that it was cancelled, which was issued as late as 12 July 1988; and (2) that HCOB 24 Oct 76, although taking the place of BTB 11 Aug 72RA, it did not take on its place in the C/S Series numbering (#83), it was instead given a new C/S Series number (#96). Well, some more coordination could have served here!

Well, this section does not relate anything more than that. This LRH ED was just a running off of all sorts of auditinglists and checklists.

Section: “U: ROUTING FORMS AND STAFF STATUSES”

Show full text of HCOB section (for reference)

Hide full text of HCOB section U: ROUTING FORMS AND STAFF STATUSES §U:1  | It has been found that Staff Status 0, I & II, Sea Org Products 0, I & II and Org Routing Forms were not in full agreement with one another. §U:2 | This is taking a lot of straightening out and is very much in need of it, as in one major org it was found to be impossible for a new staff member to route onto post! §U:3 | This is under full coordination rewrite and will be issued in the near future.

This is about that (§U:1) “It has been found that Staff Status 0, I & II, Sea Org Products 0, I & II and Org Routing Forms were not in full agreement with one another.”.

Then §U:3 informs that “This is under full coordination rewrite and will be issued in the near future.”. Today, 36 years after date it will be virtually impossible to find copies of these Org Routing Forms. No particular specifics are given even about exactly what Org Routing Forms, are these standard forms used by all orgs, or just particular orgs. This would thus make it a formidable task to be able to verify matters in detail. And thus, I will pass this by. Except for... (next paragraph)

In §U:2 it tells that “This is taking a lot of straightening out and is very much in need of it, as in one major org it was found to be impossible for a new staff member to route onto post!”. So, and what happened then, did no one got onto post in that “one major org”? C'mon guys, this is just plain silly! I am pretty confident about that a way was found to have people gone onto post either way! I don't see any problem here, a bit common sense would solve matters like these easily.

Section: “V: STAFF SECTION OFFICER”

Show full text of HCOB section (for reference)

Hide full text of HCOB section V: STAFF SECTION OFFICER §V:1  | I have for some time been concerned about the lack of care some orgs had been giving their own staff members. §V:2 | As a result HCO PL 22 May 1976 was issued which established the post of Staff Section Officer, who was responsible for the training and the processing of staff members. §V:3 | To further enforce this, the Qual Divisions of orgs were given a new Gross Divisional Statistic in HCO PL of 4 Nov 1976. This gave the dominant Qual Divisional Statistic as “Fully qualified and trained staff members in the org, cumulative.” §V:4 | Additionally, in HCO PL of 10 Nov 1976 certain staff courses were made mandatory in orgs. §V:5 | So as not to neglect staff cases, even when auditors were absent, a whole new project has been released concerning “co-audits.” §V:6 | This is actually a recovery of lost tech. There used to be co-audits, very successful ones, and they had their own special technology. §V:7 | A tech mission to the UK, reassembled the tech and got staff co-audits going with rave wins. §V:8 | All of this technology and how it is done, has been issued as Board Technical Bulletins dated around early December 1976 under the title of “Co-audit Series.” §V:9 | Both the co-audit tech and Group Processing fell under the category of lost tech, but have been restored, polished up and are being issued for full use.

Situation stated (§V:1): “I have for some time been concerned about the lack of care some orgs had been giving their own staff members.”. With the solution offered (§V:2): “As a result HCO PL 22 May 1976 was issued which established the post of Staff Section Officer, who was responsible for the training and the processing of staff members.”. Hmm, “‘was’ responsible”? Should not be in past tense, as after all it was newly established, i.e. just now.

Director of Personnel Enhancement (Division 5: Head of Dept. of Personnel Enhancement)
	“Purpose:  To ensure that all staff make excellent case and training progress and become true team contributors with increased value to themselves and the Organization.
	Ideal Scene:  Provides top case supervision, seeing that all staff are audited regularly in intensives. Ensures co-ordination and execution of staff training progresses optimumly, through expert personnel programming. ...”

	“The Department of Personnel Enhancement Division V, Qualifications is held responsible for these things.
	1.	THAT NO MISUNDERSTOOD WORDS EXIST AMONGST STAFF, AUDITORS OR IN ORG PUBLIC.
	2.	THAT ALL TRAINING AND AUDITING PROGRAMS OF STAFF, STUDENTS, AUDITORS, INTERNES OR IN ORG PUBLIC ARE IN CORRECT SEQUENCE, WITHOUT SKIPPED GRADIENT AND DONE.
	3.	THAT ALL STAFF CASES ARE PROGRESSING SATISFACTORILY WITH GOOD OCA (APA) GAINS AND THAT NO NO CASE GAIN CASES ARE ON STAFF. ...
	If there is an outness in any of these three purposes, it is the DIRECTOR OF PERSONAL ENHANCEMENT who is held responsible ... .
	Thus the DIRECTOR OF PERSONNEL ENHANCEMENT and his or her staff HOLD THE KEYS TO STAFF AND ORG SUCCESS.”          LRH

But it goes on ...

In §V:3 we find it says “To further enforce this”. To actually use the word “further” here, per the foregoing, would be a serious misnomer. Anyhow the HCOB states, as “To further enforce this” HCO PL 4 Nov 76 “Statistic Change, Gross Divisional Statistics, HCOs and Quals, OIC* Telex Change” was issued and in there “Qual Divisions of orgs were given a new Gross Divisional Statistic” that reads “FULLY QUALIFIED AND TRAINED STAFF MEMBERS IN THE ORG, CUMULATIVE” as opposed to the Valuable Final Product for the Director of Personnel Enhancement that reads (as per HCO PL 7 Dec 71 IV “Correction Division, Purposes, Ideal Scenes, Products, Statistics”): “Effective and well trained staff members.”. Ah well ...  

Then (§V:4) “Additionally” was released HCO PL 10 Nov 76 “Staff Courses Mandatory in Orgs” in where it is claimed “certain staff courses were made mandatory in orgs.”. Actually this is not what this HCO PL says, it basically only provides for “a minimum list of courses for which every org Class IV or above MUST have routing forms, checksheets and materials for staff training and staff use.”. This is not the same thing.

In real life reality all these actions did not result in any change (not surprisingly) in the situation described in §V:1 that I could see. Staff since then is still not being cared for. My personal experiences and observations through the years simply confirm that. It was okay that staff did not attend study, it was okay that staff got interrupted in the middle of an auditing action and then got stuck, and then no one doing anything about that. I have seen any such time after time. It could make a difference if you had a nice person in your organization in the right place that actually cared. Most of the time however it was totally up to the staff member him/herself if he/she attended study, and if you wanted auditing you had to find your own auditor all by yourself. And if you succeeded with that you also needed to have a C/S ok. And that could easily be denied if you had paying public. Staff simply does not have much prestige in the organization, they are dispensable. That you had an excellent post production usually did not make any difference. This situation would be better in an ordinary Class IV/V level organization, in the senior Sea Organization this was a gradient rougher. Also it would facilitate matters if you had a higher position in the organization postwise, at least being an executive or having good friends at higher places something. It could also help if you opened up your mouth and put demands (and raising your voice), you had to take a tough position yourself, you had to be heard, seen, and bother (nudging). For the most thus it was up to you and no one else. As a rule no one was going to give you presents, if you deserved it or not. On the other hand I have seen senior executives favouring their own children (or next to kin) and setting them up for auditing session frequently, this if they had deserved it or not (usually they had not).

‘lost tech’ ?

A further action (§V:5) was “a whole new project has been released concerning ‘co-audits.’” that dealt with “So as not to neglect staff cases, even when auditors were absent”.

A historical notice we find in §V:6: “This is actually a recovery of lost tech. There used to be co-audits, very successful ones, and they had their own special technology.”.

This started with HCOB 17 Mar 59 “Do It Yourself Therapy” & HCOB 25 Mar 59 “H.A.S.* Co-Audit & Comm* Course” that run consecutively with the similar Personal Efficiency Course and ended with HCOB 20 Nov 60 “HAS Co-Audit Ended”. Then it was resumed with “a new series of processes” per HCOB 22 Dec 60 “HAS Co-Audit Resumed” leading up to HCOB 29 Dec 60 “The New PE* and the New HAS Co-Audit”.

* HAS (or H.A.S.):  ‘Hubbard Apprentice Scientologist’.  * Comm: ‘Communication’.  * PE: ‘Personal Efficiency’.

HCOB 4 May 59 “The Personal Efficiency Course” noted: “The Personal Efficiency Course in London has been changed and is now more in line with the HAS Course.”. Later we learn from HCOB 23 Dec 64 “Field and Public Programming” that HAS Courses “are now Academy type courses, less costly than others, but equally precise” and is referred to as “Level 0 Course” (Communication). PE Courses continued to be delivered (although briefly abolished per HCO PL 23 Jan 61 “PE Course Abolished”), but its place was finally taken by a later development of the HQS Course (Hubbard Qualified Scientologist) for both staff and public which taught about co-auditing, group auditing and Scientology basics. In this form it was first issued as HCO PL 13 Apr 71 “HQS Course Checksheet”.

In this sense I thus would not call it (§V:6) “a recovery of lost tech”, its original data simply was transferred into something better and that would come into a better usage, after quite a few twists and turns forth and back while still in its experimental phase. But the problem posed by §V:1 focuses on staff. And staff, as my experience and observations confirm, are commonly run over and neglected. But that does not mean there are no tools around to overcome these, nonetheless if you then do not enforce these... As I see it, this attention here in this HCOB about neglected staff is just a rekindlement of their actual rights.

Well, however this all may be with Co-Auditing and/or Group Processing, I haven't seen much of that in use overall. May be it was during the later ’70s, but not since at least during the earlier and later ’80s. I guess it sort of turned to be “lost tech” once again! It is probably mostly in use through introduction courses like the HQS* (Hubbard Qualified Scientologist), that has been there since April 1971.

Section: “W: UNISSUED RUNDOWNS”

Show full text of HCOB section (for reference)

Hide full text of HCOB section W: UNISSUED RUNDOWNS §W:1  | It came to my attention in July of ’76 that about 5 years worth of my developments on Flag had never been fully packaged up or issued for use. The reason for this is, that the Tech Compilations Units which had previously worked on this were disbanded in 1972 by the then CS-4 and was not reestablished. §W:2 | Several years worth of intensive research and development are therefore backlogged in being issued. §W:3 | Only one of these areas of development is restricted to Flag, as it is the famous “L” series of rundowns which require such technical accuracy that they can only be audited by a Class XII. §W:4 | The rest of the rundowns, however, are fully capable of being fully compiled from the notes, lectures, issues and my case supervision notes and released. §W:5 | Including the repackaging necessary for the HSDC, Expanded Dianetics and reissue of Expanded Grades, all mentioned above, there were 9 rundowns in all which were never compiled or exported. §W:6 | For that matter, the much earlier Class VIII Course was added to and varied and it also is being repackaged in its original form and exported and is now being taught again in Advanced Orgs. §W:7 | The remaining rundowns are being worked on for issue as never having seen the light of day in Class IV, Saint Hill and Advanced Orgs. §W:8 | All this is now being done. So soon this important new tech will appear and be available in orgs.

Creation of an expectancy

Situation proposed (§W:1): “It came to my attention in July of ’76 that about 5 years worth of my developments on Flag had never been fully packaged up or issued for use. The reason for this is, that the Tech Compilations Units which had previously worked on this were disbanded in 1972 by the then CS-4 and was not reestablished.”. No one noticed that earlier than now?

Establishing (§W:2): “Several years worth of intensive research and development are therefore backlogged in being issued.”. Not sure what they would be as the research was pretty much wrapped up and this was also publicly announced.

Then in §W:4 it notes: “The rest of the rundowns, however, are fully capable of being fully compiled from the notes, lectures, issues and my case supervision notes and released.”. This in essence did setup the line in where new materials can be issued, that then are “compiled from the notes” and “my case supervision notes” and get it then “released”.

	“So technical progress has been:
	CLASS VIII - 1968.
	COMPLETE DIANETICS - 1969.
	COMPLETE SCIENTOLOGY - 1970.
	This is quite an achievement.”          LRH (from ‘LRH ED 117 Int’, 26 Aug 70 “Current Cases”)

The only releases (Rundowns) following that were Interiorization Rundown (Dec 70), Expanded Dianetics (Apr 72), and Primary Rundown (Mar-May 72).

Well, could it be that no further rundowns were following in these (§W:1) “5 years” since “1972” simply because there was nothing really left to have a run down on? Of course you can always develop some addition on some things, angles or sorts. The issue here is though, could it be that we had at this point in time the bulk of the technical information and rundowns that we actually needed?

Then in §W:7 we are informed that “The remaining rundowns are being worked on for issue as never having seen the light of day in Class IV, Saint Hill and Advanced Orgs.”. One may wonder what these would be about then. These all 8 of them. Pity they are not named. In §W:8 though it is referred to as “important new tech” and that it “soon ... will appear and be available in orgs.”. Any suggestions about what they were?

Section: “X: ADVANCED GRADES”

Show full text of HCOB section (for reference)

Hide full text of HCOB section X: ADVANCED GRADES §X:1  | For a number of years people have wondered when OT VIII would be released. §X:2 | Well, to tell you the honest truth, OT VIII has been in existence all those several years, and to it has been added a very large number of OT grades. None of them have been issued. Notes for all these grades are in existence. §X:3 | What I have been waiting for is 2 or 3 months of free time to go over these materials and write them up and make them available through Advanced Organizations. §X:4 | Now I will make a bargain with you. If you get all the tech straightened out and the orgs and flaps and emergencies off my lines and get your training in and your Word Clearing in and everything flying and this civilization even more thoroughly pointed in a civilized direction, you will buy me those 3 months’ worth of time so I will be able to afford the time to write up all these Advanced Levels I have researched. Do your job well and buy me these three months. §X:5 | Is it a bargain?

• Creation of an expectancy revisited
• OT VIII end of the line?

 
Creation of an expectancy revisited

Situation proposed (§X:1): “For a number of years people have wondered when OT VIII would be released.”. Indeed, it was first made mention of as early as 1968, since then its release had been promised a variety of times. Its release however never materialized. The OT levels I to VII were released during Aug 66 / Sept 70. OT VIII was announced to have been done in June 1970, this in “Ron's Address to The Grand National Convention in Los Angeles”, given on 21 Jun 70.

 
OT VIII end of the line?

Now does this circumscription at Section VIII OT not sound like end of the line? What else would one expect to come after that?

Concurrent actions that HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up” does not make mention of: ‘LRH ED 284 Int, 16 Sept 76 “Solution to Inflation”

Rather noteworthy is the price increasing system that had been implemented by ‘LRH ED 284 Int’, 16 Sept 76 “The Solution to Inflation” that basically went berserk. It just didn't stop! In fact it escalated rather wonderfully, on top of that it did put an enormous stress on the Scientology parishioner as at the end of each month prices were rising with 2% or 5% over previous month at various intervals. Needless to say that by the early ’80s prices for services had gone through the roof.

The problem with this was that here was chosen for a highly off-policy solution to handle this particular situation. Indeed, the solution was already fully in place!

	“THE COST OF A CERTIFICATE COURSE MAY NOT BE LESS THAN ONE MONTH'S AVERAGE PAY FOR THE AREA IN WHICH IT IS GIVEN AND MUST BE IN CASH.
	By average pay is meant the average upper lower class or lower middle class pay scale.”          LRH

“ONE WEEK'S PROCESS (25 HOURS) SHOULD COST AN AVERAGE MONTH'S PAY (AS IN TRAINING).”          LRH           (all from HCO PL 23 Sept 64 “Policies: Dissemination and Programs”)

These do not require any unusual solution. You just recalculate per an individual's “AVERAGE MONTH'S PAY”. Now, if there really would be a problem with inflation, and prices for services needed to be raised in order for the organization to function well. You then do not start to put up a system that can be misused so easily, and it has been. You don't prolong this for a number of years, as it finally seriously violated the solution that was already in place.

Considering that HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up” factually introduced an indeed very controversial line for authorship designations, then one comes to wonder if L. Ron Hubbard was still writing LRH EDs as well. Were others being given that task to write these as well? You see, this monthly inflation system escalated fabulously, but there was no L. Ron Hubbard to be seen that put a stop to all that!

Now LRH EDs were written by L. Ron Hubbard, but only one day apart from this one we see the release of BPL 17 Sept 76 “Handling Inflation”. This means that simultaneously something that relates to inflation was worked out by people other than L. Ron Hubbard. It would be interesting to consult this. If anyone has a copy of this for me, then please contact me!

Summary of some final valuable evaluations ...

• Various impressions expressed
• About designated authorship (once again)

 
Various impressions expressed

But... you have to find out for yourself what to think of it all.

 
About designated authorship (once again)

HCO PL 28 May 80 “Cancellation, Policy Extracts Forbidden, Disrelated Submissions Forbidden” confirms that “Board Issues are no longer being written” (meaning BPLs and BTBs). Then it says: “Policy Letters and Bulletins are traditionally written by myself as Founder and in some cases I request assistance in the writing of these. Where I have been assisted it is clearly noted that I have been.”   LRH.

There are a number of observations that can be put forward about this:
	(1) that this was an entirely new operating basis which we don't see in earlier years. It does say “traditionally written by myself”.;
	(2) that not particular much research was needed anymore as after all it was announced that the main research had come to an end. So, at such time that this main research was still in progress we see L. Ron Hubbard seldomly delegating other persons to write his policies and bulletins, and now when there was so much less work ahead he started delegating so much more?;
	“So technical progress has been:              CLASS VIII - 1968.       COMPLETE DIANETICS - 1969.       COMPLETE SCIENTOLOGY - 1970.       This is quite an achievement.”          LRH (from ‘LRH ED 117 Int’, 26 Aug 70 “Current Cases”)
	(3) that we know today that this “have been assisted” was not even true. Evidence for that we have in the form of that so very many of such references that had indicated “Assisted by ... (fill in name/post)”, had been cancelled in later years simply because they had been written by someone else, or they were not even written in the ‘I’ person, or they were referred to by other references as written by ... (this not being L. Ron Hubbard);
	(4) that these are referred to as “some cases” would be a serious misnomer. A careful estimate in percentage would get them up to some 80% or so that received an assistant. (but even many of those that did not receive an assistant, were cancelled because of the same reason, that they were not written by L. Ron Hubbard (the incidence of the Cramming Series from 1981 are a marvelous example of this);
	(5) that the BPL and BTB line just continued as ever, they are just being issued again under the HCOB/HCO PL issue-type format. This time around however we are simply being lead behind the curtain about the actual authorship. The writer either being indicated as an assistant or ... its mention removed altogether!

Please do not be mistaken here that these are just ideas that I play with. These are verified facts taken from a detailed and vast study of reference publications, the revision notices they carry, and the given cancellation information and notifications.

As it appears some ‘smart’ people came up with the idea to establish a line in where L. Ron Hubbard could continue writing new references into eternity (well, till pretty much this day). A line in where one would enjoy the authority of the person L. Ron Hubbard to have new policies, new auditing actions, and changes in operation easily accepted by the receiver. Well, unfortunately for them they have been found out! Unfortunately for us, it took a while. Now we have instead people that are in plain denial, or just can't face that they had been had (after thus many years), or they are just lacking the intelligence permitting them to see. Or it is that people just like being told to them what is true for them... After all the few protestors are just pushed to the side and are put in wordclearing actions, send to ethics, are having confessionals pulled on them, or they are simply expunged.

If the release of HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up” would have been the tool used to introduce the new era and to get all that new technology developed and implemented during 1978-82. Then what are we going to do with that? Well, it's probably something similar like with “What shall we do with the drunken sailor” èh... just “Put him in the long boat till he's sober.”.

Vocabulary:

     ..R, ..RA, ..RB (etc) or #R, #RA (etc):
For example: ‘HCO PL 24 Sept 70R’ & ‘HCO PL 24 Sept 70RA’, etc. The given date denotes the first time it has been published in issue-form. The R, RA indication may also follow after an issue-number. The R stands for ‘Revision’ and would refer to that it has been revised since it was first published. If it is revised a 2nd time it is indicated as RA, a 3rd time RB, then RC, and so on.
     audit, auditing, auditor:
The application of Scientology processes and procedures to someone by a trained auditor (listener). The goal of the auditor is to make the receiver of the auditing look at incidents and reduce the mental charge which may lay upon them. The auditor may not evaluate and has to adhere to the Auditor's code.
     BPL:
‘Board Policy Letter’. Color flash–green ink on cream paper. These are the issues of the Boards of Directors of the Churches of Scientology and are separate and distinct from HCO Policy Letters written by LRH. Only LRH issues may be printed green on white for policy and only LRH issues may have the prefix HCO. These Board issues are valid as Policy. (BPL 14 Jan 74R I, New Issues).
  This issue-type was established in January 1974. In October 1975 a project was started to cancel HCO PLs not written by L. Ron Hubbard and if still found being of value having them reissued as BPLs. By 1980 all BPLs had been revoked.
     BTB:
‘Board Technical Bulletin’. Color flash–red ink on cream paper. These are the issues of the Boards of Directors of the Churches of Scientology and are separate and distinct from HCO Bulletins written by LRH. Only LRH issues may be printed green on white for Technical Bulletins and only LRH issues may have the prefix HCO. These Board issues are valid as tech. (BPL 14 Jan 74R I, New Issues).
  This issue-type was established in January 1974. In December 1974 a project was started to cancel HCOBs not written by L. Ron Hubbard and if still found being of value having them reissued as BTBs. By 1980 all BTBs had been revoked.
     cramming:
A section in the Qualifications Division where a student is given high pressure instruction at his own cost after being found slow in study or when failing his exams. The cramming section teaches students what they have missed. This includes trained auditors who wish to be brought up-to-date on current technical developments.
     C/S:
‘Case/Supervisor’.  1. That person in a Scientology Church who gives instructions regarding, and supervises the auditing of preclears. The abbreviation C/S can refer to the Case Supervisor or to the written instructions of a case supervisor depending on context. (BTB 12 Apr 72R)  2. The C/S is the case supervisor. He has to be an accomplished and properly certified auditor and a person trained additionally to supervise cases. The C/S is the auditor's “handler.” He tells the auditor what to do, corrects his tech, keeps the lines straight and keeps the auditor calm and willing and winning. The C/S is the pc's case director. His actions are done for the pc. (Dianetics Today, Bk. 3, p. 545)
     CS-4:
‘Commodore Staff-Division 4’. Mainly concerned with external Sea Org actions like handling Scientology Orgs, missions to be send for correction and Sea Org matters. Division 4 is the Technical division of a Scientology organization. CS-4 is also referred to as ‘Training and Services Aide’.
     CS-5:
‘Commodore Staff-Division 5’. Mainly concerned with external Sea Org actions like handling Scientology Orgs, missions to be send for correction and Sea Org matters. Division 5 is the Qualifications division of a Scientology organization. CS-5 is also referred to as ‘Qual Aide’.
     CS-7:
‘Commodore Staff-Division 7’. Mainly concerned with external Sea Org actions like handling Scientology Orgs, missions to be send for correction and Sea Org matters. Division 7 is the Executive division of a Scientology organization. CS-7 is also referred to as ‘LRH Communicator Aide’.
     D of P:
The ‘Director of Processing’ will interview you on matters concerning your auditing progress and the scheduling of your auditing.
     E-meter:
‘Electro-meter’ or ‘Electropsycho-meter’.  1. It is an aid to the auditor (minister, student, pastoral counselor) in two-way communication locating areas of spiritual travail and indicating spiritual well-being in an area. (HCO PL 24 Sept 73 VII)  2. An electronic instrument for measuring mental state and change of state in individuals, as an aid to precision and speed in auditing. The E-meter is not intended or effective for the diagnosis, treatment or prevention of any disease. (Scientology Abridged Dictionary)  3. Used to verify the preclear's gain and register when each separate auditing action is ended. (HCOB 5 Apr 69R)  4. Electropsychometer. (HCOB 23 Aug 65)  5. The meter tells you what the preclear's mind is doing when the preclear is made to think of something. The meter registers before the preclear becomes conscious of the datum. It is therefore a pre-conscious meter. It passes a tiny current through the preclear's body. This current is influenced by the mental masses, pictures, circuits and machinery. When the unclear pc thinks of something, these mental items shift and this registers on the meter. (E Meter Essentials, p. 8)
     Ethics Officer (EO, E/O):
The activities of the Ethics Officer consist of isolating individuals who are stopping proper flows by pulling withholds with ethics technology and by removing as necessary potential trouble sources and suppressive individuals off org comm lines and by generally enforcing ethics codes. The purpose of the Ethics Officer is to help Ron clear orgs and the public if need be of entheta and enturbulation so that Scientology can be done. (HCO PL 11 May 65, Ethics Officer Hat)
     FDD:
‘Flag Divisional Directive’. The Flag Divisional Directive has been introduced with the purpose of communicating and pushing command policies, projects and programs. Its distribution is to SO and Scn orgs alike or as designated.
     floating needle (F/N):
The idle uninfluenced movement of the needle on the dial (of an E-meter) without any patterns or reactions in it. It can be as small as one inch or as large as dial wide. It does not fall or drop to the right of the dial. It moves to the left at the same speed as it moves to the right. It is observed on a Mark V E-meter calibrated with the TA (Tone Arm) between 2.0 and 3.0 with GIs (Good Indicators) in on the pc. It can occur after a cognition, blowdown of the TA (Tone Arm) or just moves into floating. The pc may or may not voice the cognition. (HCOB 7 May 69 V)
     F/N:
‘floating needle’. See at that entry in vocabulary.
     Grade Chart or Gradation Chart:
Classification, Gradation and Awareness Chart. On the right side of the chart there are various steps called the states of release. The left-hand side of the chart describes the very important steps of training on which one gains the knowledge and abilities necessary to deliver the grades of release to another. It is a guide for the individual from the point where he first becomes dimly aware of a Scientologist or Scientology and shows him how and where he should move up in order to make it. (The Auditor 107 ASHO)
     HCOB:
‘Hubbard Communications Office Bulletin’. Color flash–red ink on white paper. Written by LRH only , but only so starting from January 1974. These are the technical issue line. All data for auditing and courses is contained in HCOBs. For more information go here (separate window).
    HCO PL:
‘Hubbard Communication Office Policy Letter’. Color flash–green ink on white paper. Written by LRH only, but only so starting from January 1974. These are the organizational and administrative issue line. For more information go here (separate window).
     HGC:
‘Hubbard Guidance Center’. The department of the technical division of a Scientology organization which sets you up for and delivers auditing.
     HQS:
‘Hubbard Qualified Scientologist’.  1. Teaches about co-auditing and how to handle other people with group auditing. Processes taught are TRs (Training Routines) 0 to 4 and 6 to 9, co-auditing on CCHs (Control Communication Havingness processes), Op Pro by Dup (Operating Procedure by Duplication process) and Self Analysis Lists.  2. This course is a basic course in the fundamentals of Scientology technology and gives a gradient of application of a few vital principles.
     LRH:
An usual abbreviation for ‘L. Ron Hubbard’.
     Method 1 (Method One Word Clearing):
1. by meter in session. A full assessment of many, many subjects is done. The auditor then takes each reading subject and clears the chain back to earlier words and or words in earlier subjects until he gets an F/N*. 2. assess, take the reading items from the best read on down and with E/S (earlier similar) pull each one to F/N. Get each word you find to F/N. There can be many F/Ns per subject. End off with a win on the subject. 3. the action taken to clean up all misunderstoods in every subject one has studied. It is done by a word clearing auditor. The result of a properly done Method One word clearing is the recovery of one's education. Abbr. M1.
     OCA, APA:
‘Oxford Capacity Analysis’. The OCA (Oxford Capacity Analysis) is the English version of the American Personality Analysis (APA). The OCA (or APA) consists of 200 questions. These 200 questions are divided up into series of 20 questions, each of which measures a single personality trait. Thus ten traits are measured in all. (HCO PL 3 Nov 70 II)
     OEC:
‘Organization Executive Course’. Refers to ‘The Organization Executive Course’ volumes. See at that entry in vocabulary.
     ‘The Organization Executive Course’:
Subtitled in the 1970-74 release: ‘An Encyclopedia of Scientology Policy’. This is a series of books that contain the HCO PLs, and any references that are primarily dealing with administrative matters. They are divided up division wise. The HCO PLs are printed in green ink on white paper, and the volumes themselves come in green bindings. These books may also be referred to as the ‘green volumes’ or even ‘OEC volumes’. The ‘old green volumes’ then would refer to the 1970-74 release, the ‘new green volumes’ instead to the 1991 release. See a listing of published volumes here (pop-up window).
     OIC:
‘Organization Information Center’.
     pc(s):
Short for ‘preclear(s)’. See at that entry in vocabulary.
     preclear (pc):
1. A person who, through Scientology processing, is finding out more about himself and life. (The Phoenix Lectures, p. 20)  2. A spiritual being who is now on the road to becoming Clear, hence preclear. (HCOB 5 Apr 69)  3. One who is discovering things about himself and who is becoming clearer. (HCO PL 21 Aug 62)
     pc folder:
‘preclear folder’. The preclear is the person receiving Dianetics or Scientology processing. The folder contains all information relating to the processing the person is receiving.
     PTS, PTSness:
‘potential trouble source’.  1. Somebody who is connected with an SP (suppressive person) who is invalidating him, his beingness, his processing, his life. (SH Spec 63, 6506C08)  2. He's here, he's way up today and he's way down tomorrow. (Establishment Officer Lecture 3, 7203C02 SO I)  3. The mechanism of PTS is environmental menace that keeps something continually keyed in. This can be a constant recurring somatic or continual, recurring pressure or a mass. (HCOB 5 Dec 68)
     Qual, Qual Div:
‘Qualifications Division’. 1. It could be called the correction division or the adjustment division. But qualifications would also serve.  2. The Qual Division monitors not only technical quality and honesty but the administrative quality and honesty of the entire organization. HCO establishes the org, but Qual makes it run.  3. The division where the student is examined and where he may receive cramming or special assistance and where he is awarded completions and certificates and where his qualifications as attained on courses or in auditing are made a permanent record.
     R/S:
An abbreviation for ‘Rock Slam’. See at that entry in vocabulary.
     Rock Slam (R/S):
1. A crazy, irregular, unequal, jerky motion of the needle narrow as one inch or as wide as three inches, happening several times a second. (E-Meter Essentials, p. 17).  2. As a meter representation, is the result of innumerable committed overts in a certain direction, and when you've got that certain direction isolated, that is to say the items against which the overts were committed isolated you then have of course a rock slam. (SH Spec 203, 6210C11)
  Rock Slammer:  It means it's somebody who gets a rock slam when you ask them: “Consider overts against Scn” and that broadens out of course against Ron, against the organization or against an auditor. (SH Spec 198, 6210C04)
     Saint Hill Special Briefing Course (SHSBC):
This is a course delivered by L. Ron Hubbard at Saint Hill, England during 1961-66 and comprising of 447 lectures, its result is an adept auditor and thorough know-how of Scientology itself. This will make you a Class VI Auditor.
     Sec Check(ing):
Short for ‘security check(ing)’.
     TA:
‘tone arm (action)’. See at that entry in vocabulary.
     ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’:
This is a series of books that contain the HCOBs, and any references that are primarily dealing with technical matters. The HCOBs are printed in red ink on white paper, and the volumes themselves come in red bindings. The references are arranged in chronological release order (per issue date). These books may also be referred to as the ‘red volumes’. The ‘old red volumes’ then would refer to the 1976-80 release, the ‘new red volumes’ instead to the 1991 release. See a listing of published volumes here (pop-up window).
     tone arm (TA):
1. Tone arm refers to the tone arm or its motion. (HCOB 13 Apr 64)  2. Tone arm action. A technical term for a quantitative measure of case gain in the Scientology processing of a preclear for a given unit of time. (Introduction to Scientology Ethics, p. 38)  3. The measure of accumulation of charge. (Class VIII No. 6)  4. A measure of the amount of encysted force which is leaving the case. (SH Spec 291, 6308C06)
     ‘W/O’:
‘Warrant Officer’.