No worries on what you are saying, I don't think you are invalidating anybody. You have said you did well with your training, I get why you may defensive about it (as I am with what I did).
In regard to the F/N, I have seen the F/N phenomenon you describe, but to have that as the only phenomenon acceptable as an F/N, would be a crime to many of us who trained and audited pre GAT.
As an exaggerated example:
- The pc who has just lost their spouse. There is usually a fair amount of charge over something like that. As an auditor ya try to help peel it off in layers, bit by bit. Ya may see the F/N get a little bit better as the session goes on, and ya may end up accomplishing what you wanted to with and for the pc, but ya won't see the pc skipping off to exams with any kind of three sweep F/N, cause he or she has still lost their spouse.
- The pc has got out-int, out-lists and out ruds up the ying yang. Ya work on peeling off the charge bit by bit. The more ya handle, the better the F/N gets may be, but if ya couldn't take those "fleeting F/N's" at the beginning, you'd never have the chance to unsnarl the pc, let alone end up with that F/N phenomenon that you have described with the "three sweeps" (which would often be, once your goal with the pc had been accomplished).
Needless to say, this F/N arbitrary was such a shocker to so many when it came in and was enforced, and as a result many had no choice but to quit.
Well, there you go! I just audited processes on the levels, and drug RDs and so on, so Ive never had to deal with these scenarios. The one or two sec checks Ive done on people would have probably gone a lot smoother with the old FN definition, Im beginning to think..... ooooh... thats a scary thought....
