I think you have a total misunderstanding of auditing, Vinaire, if you think it's just about getting a person to talk.
Hubbard hits it very, very early in the tech vols with the "itsa" business.
You are trying to get the person to look (itsa) and tell you what he sees (report). Then you acknowledge. The idea is to have the person continually itsa'ing. The report line is necessary because many people will keep things at a distance from themselves, rather than re-experiencing the situation with all it's emotion and force, etc., but when they report, they tend to engage the material. This is also the reason for repetition. The first rehearsal is exactly that: they are telling you something they have rehearsed to themself a million times, maybe told friends about a million times, all without inspecting the thing again. The theory is that it was never fully inspected, because there was too much going on, they were overwhelmed, at the time (or too little going on [plus/minus randomity]), and so the thing was never let go of, because there is unfinished business there. So they look again. They report again. This is continued until change ceases, and "end phenomena" are present.
It's not "just getting them to talk": far from it.
Well, what I have found is that the "report" aspect and "acknowleding" each bit is unnecessary in the KHTK approach, because the actual relief comes from looking. Just being with the person and encouraging the person to look is much more efficient way to go. This is what friends do.
Hubbard's approach was diving into the mind and digging deeply. KHTK approach is simply taking the layers off as they become available and not digging into the mind at all. There is a big difference.
Hubbard's approach puts one into tricky, stressful and dangerous situations that are not error-tolerant. KHTK avoids all those situations and is very error-tolerant.
Hubbard is forcing people to look according to his own computations. He is trying to get around the self-protective features of the mind. You may get some spectacular results this way, but this beefs up the resistance in the mind and also makes one dependent on the auditor. OT levels do not make one independent. They make one very dependent on an ego system of Hubbard's design.
KHTK is simply encouraging people to look by following the attention patterns of the way the mind wants to unfold or un-stack itself.
This "reporting" feature may be important in Hubbard's method, but it is not important in KHTK. There is no reason to keep pc folders. Each KHTK session, or friendly discussion, may start totally fresh and new from wherever a person's attention is at. The KHTK exercises may be done in any sequence and as many times as one wants.
The repetition is necessary only for digging into the mind. This is not done in KHTK. If a question is repeated in an exercise, it is simply to see if another response to that question is available. A response is not expected as in Scientology where one repeats the question until one gets the right response to make the needle F/N. In KHTK if there is no response available to a question, one simply drops the question, or one may simply discuss the question while encouraging the person to look if a person has his attention in that area. There is no boring or drilling in KHTK as it is in Scientology.
The basic KHTK principles are laid out in KHTK 1A, 1B and 1C. KHTK 1D shows how KHTK princles make the application of other therapies much safer. I am now reviewing subsequent KHTK essays.
I understand auditing. I simply do not want to continue with that eror-prone and self-defeating approach.
.