HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 10 MAY 19621
PREPCHECKING AND SEC CHECKING
How do you use Form 3 (the Joburg), Form 6A and other forms with Prepchecking?
These forms have great value in improving a case, they dig up things. They get off the overts against Scientology that hold up many a case.
Now that Prepchecking is here, with all its vast ability to clean up this life, you still need these forms. For the most general auditor fault in Prepchecking is going too shallow. By using these forms this is to a large measure remedied by the use of all our Sec Check forms as released on HCO Policy Letters or even in Information Letters.
An old auditor, for instance, will make much faster case progress (or even make case progress) if given the Saint Hill Special “last 2 pages of the Joburg and a Form 6A”.
Prepchecking and Sec Checking come together with a simple formula:
IF A SEC CHECK QUESTION DOESN’T AT ONCE CLEAR ON THE METER BY SIMPLE REVELATION, THE AUDITOR PREPCHECKS IT.
The smoothest way to clean a Sec Check question is to ask the pc to consider it carefully, then clean the needle of any response to it and go on. There is no varying the question.
If a question doesn’t clear on one or two revelations, you then swing straight into a formal Prepcheck of the question.
This specific drill, shortly to become a TR, should be precisely followed.
AUDITOR (watching meter) (using Sec Check Form question): “Have you ever stolen anything?”
(Auditor may tell pc if needle reacted and steer pc’s attention.)
PC: “I stole a watch once.” (Or whatever response.)
AUDITOR: “Thank you. I will now check the question: ‘Have you ever stolen anything?’ ”
IF NEEDLE DOESN’T REACT:
AUDITOR: “That seems clear at the moment.” (Asks next Sec Check question.)
IF NEEDLE STILL REACTS:
AUDITOR: “There’s still something on this.”
(Auditor writes down the question on his report as a Zero A question. Auditor probes for a specific single overt, finds one, forms the What question for use in a chain, writes it on his report and goes straight into routine Prepchecking. When the What question is null, the auditor returns to the same Sec Check question as above, tests it for now being clean. If not, more Prepchecking on it is indicated. If clean now he goes to next question on Form.)
If the auditor knows this drill his progress down a form will be relatively rapid.
The theory of this is that if a question doesn’t promptly clear on the needle then it is part of a chain and must be Prepchecked to get all of it.
The phrasing of the What question for Prepchecking is not the Sec Check question. The What question is derived only from the overt discovered.
Any Sec Check question Prepchecked is tested before leaving it just as though it were found reacting in the first place (same drill as above).
USE OF RUDIMENTS IN PREPCHECKING
Do not continually ask the pc, “In this session have I missed a withhold on you?” while doing any Prepchecking.
In Prepchecking one asks for missed withholds only after cleaning a What question and in End Rudiments.
Prepchecking sends the pc down the track. If an auditor says during Prepchecking a chain, “In this session have I missed a withhold on you?” it yanks the pc back to present time and out of whatever incident he or she is in.
In doing a Routine 3 Process one asks for missed withholds often and at any time, but not in a Prepcheck session.
If you do five or so Sec Check questions without a single one having to be Prepchecked, it is, however, good policy to ask for missed withholds. Ask for missed withholds in Prepchecking only after a What question is nul, but always ask and clean it then.
In Routine 3 processes ask for missed withholds at any time.
HELP THE PC
In general, when getting rudiments in or getting off missed withholds or invalidations, help the pc by guiding his attention against the needle.
This is quite simple. The auditor asks the question, the needle instantly reacts, the pc (as he or she usually does) looks puzzled if the auditor says “It reacts.” The pc thinks it over. As he or she is thinking, the auditor will see the same reaction on the needle. Softly the auditor says “That” or “There” or “What’s that you’re looking at?” As the pc knows what he or she is looking at at that instant, the thing can be dug up.
This is auditor co-operation, not triumph.
Most often the pc does not know what it is that reacts as only unknowns react. Therefore an auditor’s “There” when the needle twitches again, before the pc has answered, co-ordinates with whatever the pc is looking at and thus it can be spotted and revealed by the pc. This is only done when the pc comm lags for a few seconds.
Remember, the pc is always willing to reveal. He or she doesn’t know What to reveal. Therein lies the difficulty. Pcs get driven out of session when asked to reveal something yet do not know what to reveal.
By the auditor’s saying “There” or “What’s that?” quietly each time the needle reacts newly, the pc is led to discover what should be revealed.
Auditors and pcs get into a games condition in Prepchecking and rudiments only when the
auditor refuses this help to the pc.
New auditors routinely believe that in Prepchecking the pc knows the answer and won’t give it. This is an error. If the pc knew all the answer, it wouldn’t react on the meter.
Old-timers have found out that only if they steer by repeated meter reaction, giving the pc “There” or “What’s that?” can the pc answer up on most rudiments questions, missed withholds and so on.
This is the only use of reads other than instant reads on the E-Meter.
Help the pc. He doesn’t know. Otherwise the needle would never react.
Even if doing a Sec Check form still call it Prepchecking when done this way. This is “Prepchecking on Forms.” The Zero for the whole lot of course is “Are you withholding anything?” Thus Sec Check form questions, when they do not nul at one crack become Zero A questions, and the What formed from the overt found becomes the No. 1 question.
L. RON HUBBARD
Hubbard, L. R. (1962, 10 May). HCOB: Prepchecking and Sec Checking. Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology (1991 ed., Vol. VI. p. 504-506). Los Angeles: Bridge Publications, Inc.