Yeah, but evaluated using what criteria? Well, it would have to be based on which processes produced consistent, reliable, predictable results -- and nothing from Scientology does that. As you have recounted in your own stories, you "got a benefit", but nothing like what was promised. That matches other stories.
Nothing in Hubbard's "tech" produces consistent results. Nothing produces results reliably. No one can predict what will happen, if anything.
That's all well known and very true. So how would these "trained auditors" conclude that any of his "tech" was "good"?
Why would we choose to apply Hubbard's unrealistic standard of "100% workability" to the reformation and reorganization of Scn tech? Why would we repeat his mistake of so narrowly defining the EPs of various auditing procedures and levels, when experience has shown that such standards are unobtainable?
Why not start by recognizing the fact that there's a wide range of potential benefits possible with these procedures and rundowns? No two people have ever gotten the same degree of benefit from anything in Scn, so let's begin by acknowledging that fact, then set about redefining the EPs of various auditing actions to reflect that.
Instead of forcing every pc and auditor to strive toward some arbitrary, mythical standard, we should work towards assisting pc's to achieve whatever degree of benefit is realistic for each individual.
For instance; an extremely literate person isn't going to experience the same quality or quantity of benefit from doing KTL as someone who's only marginally literate. There's potential benefit there for each of them, but the degree of that potential is quite different.
Didn't Hubbard himself discuss this very thing in DMSMH when he talked about the "cleared cannibal"? I believe he did.
Switching gears....
How effective is Rundown X? Has it ever been shown to deliver real benefit to those receiving it? How much benefit? How little? What's the average of benefit gained? Can it be determined through studying the case files of the tens of thousands who've previously completed it?
That's the sort of honest clinical analysis that has never been applied to Scn tech. I would think that any attempt to reform Scn tech would have to start there. Using Hubbard's EPs as a baseline, such an analysis could determine the upper and lower limits of workability for each action analyzed.
In the end I think you'd arrive at a 'potential benefit quotient' for every action studied. As an example, it might be found that 80% of pc's experienced 'some/extreme' benefit from receiving Grade 0 auditing, while 20% experienced 'little/no' benefit. That would render a "PBQ" of 80/20, thus establishing Grade 0 as a workable, beneficial rundown to be preserved.
Case analysis of the Purif might result in a PBQ of 50/50, which would qualify that rundown for elimination from the line-up of recognized services.
I don't mean to get long winded here. I'm just throwing out some ideas about how such a broad analysis might be conducted. In the long run, the goal is to finally do the honest research on this technology to determine the actual workability of various components of the subject. Others are likely to have much better suggestions than mine, but I believe mine would be a logical approach to the problem.