Speaking of authorship. That was another situation that I had to deal with as CS 4. The truth was that lots of the tech was not authored by Hubbard. In fact, one of the things I did as LRH's technical aide was write bulletins, HCOBs. If it was important, it had to bear LRH's name, because that was the way the religion was set up. I didn't like the system much for several reasons. The first was I thought people should know who actually wrote the bulletins. Secondly, the system was set up that if something went wrong, or if Hubbard wanted to change something, he could save face and blame it on someone else. "The mice have been gnawing at the pillars again... ." I reached a compromise with Hubbard: if I wrote a bulletin, it would be "Assisted by". That didn't always work, though, because if it was an important bulletin, it wouldn't do to have it assisted by someone else.
One of the first orders I got from Hubbard was that I was to cancel everything the last two CS 4s had ever written. It was an impossible task because I would have just canceled out the grade chart. What was clear to me from this order, was that there were a line of fall guys before me. It would be just a matter of time before, I too, would be the "who" and have my work canceled.
As CS 4, I had various projects done and had several people working for me at different times. LRH had written Technical Correction Roundup in 1976 or '77 which called for a great deal of writing and compilation. The Expanded Dianetic project was a particular nightmare -- for many reasons. The first was that a lot of the work that had been done on it originally was by Allan Gilbertson. LRH decided that Allan Gilbertson was a squirrel, so he wanted the EX DN course done again, using only LRH material. (LRH loved the idea that if there was something wrong with the tech, it was because someone else messed it up.) The problem was that Expanded Dianetics really wasn't fully researched to start with, and there were no, or few, successful case histories. I remember getting a nudge from him concerning what was taking the re-write so long. I told him that the project of re-writing the case histories was incomplete. Much to my embarrassment, Hubbard took what I said out of context and wrote an HCOB saying that Training and Services Aide had found the why on Expanded Dianetics-- the case histories hadn't been fully written up. The real problem was Expanded Dianetics wasn't completely researched -- something I believe LRH really didn't want to think about at the time.
Sifting through HCOBs and canceling "out tech" ones or ones written by "other people" was something that went on constantly. The "out tech" HCOBs were then corrected by a project and the HCOBs written by that project would be sifted through a few years later and canceled as out tech. In 1974, there was a project done by Molly and another girl, FMO ___. They were supposed to change bulletins into BTBs that hadn't been written by LRH. But the important ones were all retained as HCOBs whether they were written by Hubbard or not. In compliance to the LRH order to me to cancel everything written by Livingston and Shafron, I had stacks of bulletins put together with their CSWs. The problem was, what to revise them to? I couldn't just cancel important bulletins which described technical processes for no reason. Most of them had been ordered written by LRH, and even though he had ordered them canceled, he would have been furious if they were canceled with no replacement. Finally, I asked Shafron to go through his stack and let me know if he thought anything needed to be revised, which he did graciously. He found a few that he thought needed to be updated so I sent them over to David Mayo to check and if he agreed, up to LRH Pers Comm for approval. Sometimes they went to Hubbard, but mostly LRH didn't look at stuff like that.