HCOB: Qualifications Technical Actions
Author: Hubbard, L. R.
Document date: 1964, 6 August
Document title: Qualifications Technical Actions
Document type: Hubbard Communications Office Bulletin
Book title: The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology
Edition: 1991
Volume: VII
Page(s): 639-645
Location: Los Angeles
Publisher: Bridge Publications, Inc.
Description: Hubbard discusses standard practices for the Qualifications Division; directs the writing and routing of reports regarding students and preclears; directs Ethics to handle PTSes and SPs; provides the appropriate attitude toward these cases.
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, SussexHCO BULLETIN OF 6 AUGUST AD15
Remimeo
All Qual Hats
All Staff Auditor Hats
Tech Executives
Ethics
HCO Sec
Div 7QUALIFICATIONS TECHNICAL ACTIONS
THIS IS A STAR-RATED TECHNICAL HAT FOR EXAMINERS, REVIEW AUDITORS AND QUAL EXECUTIVES AND IS THE STANDARD GUIDE FOR THEIR TECHNICAL ACTIONS
All cases that come to the Qual Division are unusual.
The solution to ALL cases that come to the Qual Division is to do the USUAL.
If you don’t hold on to that datum hard, all the “unusual” cases will soon have Review doing the unusual. And the only salvation for any Qual situation is to do the USUAL.
Don’t go into a dispersal1 because of the unusual nature of the Review cases. If they were standard they would not be in Review.
But Review has a standard procedure. It is an always, invariable standard procedure. Don’t audit the case, audit the procedure. If you do so YOU WILL NEVER MISS. You will only miss if you get wrapped up in how unusual it all is.
Today Case Supervision and Review actions are all very, very standard. And very, very workable. You only get in a mess with a case when you don’t use standard actions.
It took more than a third of a century to find the keys to all cases. None is going to repeat all that research in the twenty minutes given to handle a case, so the best solution is to do what’s known.
[...]
REPORTS
When a Review Auditor or an Examiner finds a tech mess like alter-is or the fractured comm cycle of an HGC auditor, they MUST report it to Qual Sec who MUST send in an Ethics chit on it. The chit is written by the Examiner or the Review Auditor and sent to Qual Sec for forwarding to Ethics.
ONLY in this way will Examiners or Review ever hold onto their own activities. If they don’t chit gross auditing errors found in pcs or in auditing instructions then their whole larger purpose is defeated. Qual is the technical cop. Handle flat ball bearings, yes. But also proof up the Tech Division against having so many by reporting its goofs.
This applies to any student received also. Qual, getting a student or pc who has then to be sent to Ethics MUST chit to Ethics whoever overlooked it in Tech. When Qual finds a student who is SP or PTS who has been on course a while, Qual must chit the student’s Course Supervisor for a big goof in having the student on course at all. Similarly, Qual chits an auditor whose pc, sent to Review, turns out to be PTS or SP. The Academy or HGC must have gone stupid to be auditing or training such a student or pc. For they bring total chaos to the assembly line. Supervisors and auditors who don’t send pcs who are PTS or SP to Ethics deserve Psychiatric Awards. For they are wrecking the org by continuing to train or process such a person. So that’s Qual’s hat, too.
When Ethics won’t handle a Roller Coaster or an SP and pushes the being back into the Org Qual must cable or despatch the Office of LRH Saint Hill. We have the tech on PTS and SP. We mustn’t train or audit them until the condition is handled properly in Ethics (and even then we train and process them with a cynical squint in the left eye, alert for further messes from them.)
Hubbard, L. R. (1964, 6 August). Qualifications Technical Actions. (Hubbard Communications Office Bulletin). The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology (1991 ed., Vol. VII, pp. 639-645). Los Angeles: Bridge Publications, Inc.