6202C07 SHSpec-112  Missed Withholds

     If, in running a havingness process, you get no needle action, you should
realize that there is something strange to get out of the road.  So you could
ask about aspects of havingness and see if there is anything that would keep
the PC from having, etc.  Clean it up.

     Always audit with the meter in direct line of sight, so that, by merely
lifting or dropping your gaze, you can see PC and meter without turning your
head.  Turning your head signifies to the PC that you are not interested in
his case.

     In organizations, keep students' and pcs' missed withholds well cleaned
up.  Similarly with staff auditors.  What a missed withhold is, is subject to
misinterpretation.  People are apt to ask for withholds when that is not what
is wanted.  It is not unpulled, unrestimulated withholds that cause trouble;
it is the "what-should-have-been-found-out-and-wasn't".  It is not a withhold;
it is a should-have-found-out.

     Empirically, it turns out that all ARC breaks, blows, upsets, natter,
etc. stem from missed withholds.  The mechanism and the theory may be what was
outlined in the last lecture or it may not, but this is still true as an
empirical fact.  Christ was crucified because he missed withholds.  The
withhold can be inadvertent or a "didn't know".  No matter what, the PC's
modifier of his main goal line will be thrown into dramatization when the
withhold is missed.  You can prevent this by cleaning up ARC breaks as soon as
they happen, pulling withholds as soon as they happen, and keeping ruds in
rigorously.  Or, if you know the modifier, you can chant it to the PC to turn
off the dramatization.  This is a poor way to do it, but possible.  You can
get a list to read in this way.  But just running "should-have-known" to death
would get all ruds in with a clank.  This can be used at any time, not parked
in ritual of pattern [random rudiment].

     Don't drop, "Are you withholding anything?" from ruds, but realize that
the missed withhold is a totally different question and proposition and area.
Using missed withholds, you can short-circuit all the other out-ruds.  One
caution: if you open up a whole new area of track, the condition of the case
has changed, and you will want to check missed withholds again, since a new
crop may have come to light from the change.

     Auditors don't always expect or allow for change in the PC.  They
should.  The consequence of change is that aspects of the case shift.  This is
quite apparent in 3DXX.  Every identity you go through has its own bank, its
own package of engrams.  If you are listing effectively, the PC is sitting
right next to the terminal you announce, so you are pulling up a bank every
item, if the PC is really in session, even though they are only lock
valences.  The PC will dramatize the last item you found.

     When you get these case changes, you are getting a bunch of
"should-have-knowns" you hadn't seen before.  You handle them in a sloppy
fashion with middle rudiments.  Don't distract the PC with them or make a big
fuss over them.  But when you notice the PC even one tenth out of session,
don't wait for more upset.  Get in the "should-have-known", since the PC is in
a valence with missed withholds that weren't there for the valence he was in a
minute earlier.  Catch it the instant the PC starts to slip out of session.

     The quality of an auditor is observable at the stage of ARC break where
the auditor acts.  The less ARC break needed to get action, the better.  A
change of pace is enough.  LRH cleans up the session before the PC knows he
has an ARC break, but not to the extent of patching up nonexistent ARC breaks
and causing one.  A PC who has a "should-have-found-out" is always on the
verge of an ARC break.  He is the ARC breaky PC.  Anybody who gives you a
bunch of upset, disagreement with the organization, etc., has a continuous
missed withhold.  This principle is responsible for more loss of
dissemination, loss of scientologists, and of public to scientology than any
single factor.

     PE foundations and co-audits need this datum.  You could run them on the
basis that everyone in the PE foundation is a professional find-out-abouter.
Then anyone who walks in on a PE course should be assumed to have continuous
missed withholds which they have come to see if you can find out about.  They
don't really come in to find out about scientology or to be helped or anything
else.  If you don't find out about them, they ARC break and go out and
bad-mouth you.  You can create an anti-scientology public by doing tests on
people, since doing so can result in just missing their withholds.  You would
never lose people who you checked on a meter with, "What should we find out
about you?  What should the last group you were in have found out about you
that they didn't?" and cleared up the reads.

     Knowingness, to most people, is knowledge of their O/W's.  The reason a
co-audit doesn't build up is that, when auditing without meters, withholds are
missed and people blow.  knowledge as knowledge of overts is the bottom rung
of knowledge.  It is a past withhold that is restimulated.  An auditor is
locked on by pcs as an expert if he can get the missed withholds off the
case.  Any criticism the PC throws at you is just caused by the
"should-have-found-out" you didn't ask for, even if you are actually worthy of
criticism in your auditing tech.

     So add missed withholds to both ends of the session and use
"should-have-known" in mid ruds.  Cases that have a reputation for being rough
to audit should be approached by finding an area of "should-have-known" prior
to scientology and shooting it full of holes.  Then get all the
"should-have-knowns" from scientology cleaned up.