Unclear on Co-Auditing Method One Word Clearing

When I first read Andreas’ analysis of outpoints and squirreling on the Bridge, I had a hard time believing it. Full article here: Bridge changes since 1972

In particular was the issue of the Method One Co-Audit, the first step on the training side. I asked myself how could a person who trains to become a Word Clearer can have misunderstood words or cannot notice contradicting data in this step, let alone any experienced C/S or auditor for that matter?

I actually wrote to Andreas in order to correct him, stating that I thought there was a mistake in his reasoning, which he writes as follows:

“M1-Co-Auditing. New on the bridge since 1990. Apparently, LRH is still publishing further parts of the bridge out of his grave – which is a total contradiction to HCO B September 6, 1971 W/C Series 21 Correct Sequence – Qualifications of Word Clearers”. At the end of this HCOB LRH writes: (A Class III Academy Auditor qualification is required to do Method No. 1 as the action requires assessing and the handling of ARC Breaks, problems and withholds, for which a Class III is trained. Anyone who is able to handle a meter is qualified to do Method No. 2. Any person can do Method No. 3.)”

The above section in parentheses fall under the section WD CLEARING WD CLEARERS to be used in the rare scenario in which no Word Clearers (WD CLEARERS) are present in an org. In fact there are six steps to be done:

  1. Choose 2 word clearers who then work on each other.

  2. Any Progress Program for each one.

  3. Word Clear the Word Clearing Series by Method 2.

  4. Check out on the auditing required for Method 1.

  5. Do Method No. 1 on each other.

  6. Do Purpose Clearing on each other.

It also explicitly states right after this section: “(Note: A “Progress Program” or a “Repair Program” is a Scientology auditing program to clean up upsets in life.)” Also, “(Purpose Clearing also requires a Class III Academy Auditor.)”

This is key as the reference here relates to training to become a Word Clearer in order to fill the post on a staff without one, as opposed merely to getting Method One Word Clearing while as a PC. It wasn’t until I realized that I had assumed that Method One Word Clearing was the first step of the current bridge that I saw my mistake. When I carefully checked it clearly states that Co-Auditing Method One Word Clearing comes as the first official step on the current Bridge.

Seeing that distinction was a revelation to me as I was confusing receiving M1WC as a PC with training for M1WC as an auditor. What is more, by default one must understand how to operate an e-meter as step 3 (Method 2) requires this. Yet, one does not even become a Hubbard Professional Metering Course Graduate for another 4 steps on the current Bridge! In addition, the final three steps of checking out on auditing for Method No. 1, doing Method No. 1 and Purpose Clearing absolutely require a Class III auditor quite explicitly while this reference has never been canceled.

In fairness, the course packs from the 1990s on Method One Co-Auditing do teach some e-meter skills, but by no means is one a professional at this level – let alone can they claim to have properly checked out on the auditing for Method One as they are not a Class III auditor. This is incredibly out-gradient and out-sequence.

This might be a bit confusing as it was for me, because at the top of this same HCOB it explains what should happen for those GETTING word clearing as a PC – which I initially misunderstood for use in training:

“The principal methods of word clearing are numbered No. 1 for the full in-session rundown, No. 2 for the metered action of clearing up words in specific materials and No. 3 for looking up words seen and not understood by the student or reader.

This is correct sequence for doing the three types of word clearing.

By doing No. 1 in full session, using the list for assessment, one obtains the basic word and meaning errors of the past. By getting these out-of-the-way, it is now possible to clean up current materials much more rapidly with Method 2, where the person is put on a meter and reads the material to another who is watching the meter and catching each read.

With Method 1 out-of-the-way, Method 2 becomes more rapid.

Method 3 will then be done by the person himself because he now knows better.

No. 2 and No. 3 can be used on and on one or the other.

If you do it backwards, beginning with Method No. 3, much more time is consumed. If Method No. 2 is used without No. 1 being done, much more work has to be done to clean up an existing piece of study material or text.

So the correct sequence is No. 1, No. 2 and then No. 3.

This does not mean you cannot start with No. 3 or No. 2. It just means it is much faster to do them in correct sequence.”

Nevertheless, I resisted as I believed to have found another contradiction in a bulletin when Hubbard was indisputably alive: WC1 COMES FIRST of HCOB 2 JANUARY 1972

Here Hubbard says M1WC must be done before M2WC, but that M3WC is all right – and I argued that this contradicts step 3 (Method 2) of WD CLEARING WD CLEARERS here. It also contradicts the earlier part of the bulletin which says that it’s OK to do 3, 2, 1 but that it’s less ideal, not correct sequence and takes more time. Again, I didn’t see that this applies only in terms of auditing a PC – not for training to be an auditor or Word Clearer; one could still use M3WC before M1WC on the PC, but it’s more time consuming and an improper sequence.

In any case, further searching yielded the main bug for the problem in Word Clearing Series 8RC – HCOB 30 JUNE 1971 Issue II – Revised 3 MARCH 1989 (please note that it has been revised 4 times, and the original HCOB is markedly different, as the following reference does not appear anywhere until after 1986):

“Method One requires an Academy Class III Auditor to deliver the rundown professionally in HGCs, but it can be learned and done on a co-audit course which teaches unclassed students how to audit the procedure on each other.”

Carefully read that statement again. It acknowledges a requirement for a Class III or higher Auditor to deliver the rundown professionally, but at the same time states unclassed students can not only learn but actually do Method One on each other. This is self-contradictory to the extreme as they not only skip step 3 (Method 2) which comes before, but they also have not been Word Cleared on Method 1 themselves let alone handled basic ARCX, problems and upsets which come prior to actually word clearing. Unsurprisingly, it is repeated multiple times in the course packets from the 1990s in which a student is required to drill (memorize) the material as opposed to questioning or examining it. Yet nobody seems to have noticed this, and all explanations for this fall short as no references cancel it nor do they offer a better solution.

Co-Auditing Method One Word Clearing is definitely out-sequence and the current references to support it are undoubtedly altered to suit an agenda. This is a quickie action in any event and more harmful than helpful. It must be removed from both the Church of Scientology as well as the independent field as a training method, and if it is to be restored, it should move somewhere after Class III if to be used at all.

Thank you Andreas for opening my eyes. If the very first step of training is this badly bugged, one can only imagine how altered the rest of the bridge would be from this point forward.

Here the original HCOB for your reference:


Posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , .

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.