PTS Classifications

An extensive classification of PTS conditions was made by R. Hubbard back in 1964. This classification, in great detail, talks about who to accept for processing and who not to accept. Since this is more a matter of rules and practical policies we will not comment on it except for this, they relate to the technical facts in  "Who Can the Auditor Help". They are quoted from the Admin Dictionary.

PTSness is actually a PTP (present time problem) and causes roller coaster as it is difficult to audit over a PTP or work either. 
PTS PERSONS, those who are connected to suppressive persons or groups and are potential trouble sources. 

PTS TYPE ONE, the SP on the case is right in present time actively suppressing the person. Type One is normally handled by an Ethics Officer in the course of a hearing.
PTS TYPE TWO, Type Two is harder to handle than Type One, for the apparent suppressive person in present time is only a restimulator for the actual suppressive. The pc who isn't sure, won't disconnect, or still roller-coasters, or who doesn't brighten up, can't name any SP at all is a Type Two.
PTS TYPE THREE, the Type Three PTS is mostly in institutions or would be. In this case the Type Two's apparent SP is spread all over the world and is often more than all the people there are - for the person sometimes has ghosts about him or demons and they are just more apparent SPs but imaginary as beings as well.
PTS TYPE A, persons intimately connected with persons (such as marital or familial ties) of known antagonism to mental or spiritual treatment or Scn. In practice such persons, even when they approach Scn in a friendly fashion, have such pressure continually brought to bear upon them by persons with undue influence over them that they make very poor gains in processing and their interest is solely devoted to proving the antagonistic element wrong. They, by experience, produce a great deal of trouble in the long run as their own condition does not improve adequately
under such stresses to effectively combat the antagonism. Their present time problem cannot be reached as it is continuous, and so long as it remains so, they should not be accepted for auditing by an organization or auditor.
PTS TYPE B, criminals with proven criminal records often continue to commit so many undetected harmful acts between sessions that they do not make adequate case gains and therefore should not be accepted for processing by organizations or auditors.
PTS TYPE C, persons who have ever threatened to sue or embarrass or attack or who have publicly attacked Scn or been a party to an attack and all their immediate families should never be accepted for processing by a Central Organization or an auditor. They have a history of only serving other ends than case gain and commonly again turn on the organization or auditor. They have already barred themselves out by their own overts against Scn and are thereafter too difficult to help, since they cannot openly accept help from those they have tried to injure.
PTS TYPE D, responsible-for-condition cases have been traced back to other causes for their condition too often to be acceptable. By responsible-for-condition cases is meant the person who insists a book or some auditor is "wholly responsible for the terrible condition I am in." Such cases demand unusual favors, free auditing, tremendous effort on the part of auditors. Review of these cases show that they were in the same or worse condition long before auditing, that they are using a planned campaign to obtain auditing for nothing, that they are not as bad off as they claim, and that their antagonism extends to anyone who seeks to help them, even their own families. Establish the rights of the matter and decide accordingly.
PTS TYPE E, persons who are not being audited on their own determinism are a Liability as they are forced into being processed by some other person and have no personal desire to become better. Quite on the contrary they usually want only to prove the person who wants them audited wrong and so do not get better. Until a personally determined goal to be processed occurs, the person will not benefit.
PTS TYPE F, persons who "want to be processed to see if Scn works" as their only reason for being audited have never been known to make gains as they do not participate. News reporters fall into this category. They should not be audited. 

PTS TYPE G, persons who claim, that "if you help such and such a case" (at great length and your expense) because somebody is rich or influential or the neighbors would be electrified should be ignored. Processing is designed for bettering individuals, not progressing by stunts or giving cases undue importance. Process only at convenience and usual arrangements. Make no extraordinary effort at the expense of other persons who do want processing for
normal reasons. Not one of these arrangements has ever come off successfully as it has the unworthy goal of notoriety, not betterment. 
PTS TYPE H, persons who "have an open mind" but no personal hopes or desires for auditing or knowingness should be ignored, as they really don't have an open mind at all, but a lack of ability to decide about things and are seldom found to be very responsible and waste anyone's efforts "to convince them." 
PTS TYPE I, persons who do not believe anything or anyone can get better. They have a purpose for being audited entirely contrary to the auditor's and so, in this conflict, do not benefit. When such persons are trained they use their training to degrade others. Thus they should not be accepted for training or auditing. 
PTS TYPE J, persons attempting to sit in judgment on Scn in hearings or attempting to investigate Scn should be given no undue importance. One should not seek to instruct or assist them in any way. This includes judges, boards, newspaper reporters, magazine writers, etc. All efforts to be helpful or instructive have done nothing beneficial as they first idea is a firm "I don't know" and this usually ends with an equally firm "I don't know." If a person can't see for himself or judge from the obvious, then he does not have sufficient powers of observation even to sort out actual
evidence. In legal matters, only take the obvious effective steps - carry on no crusades in court. In the matter of reporters, etc., it is not worthwhile to give them any time contrary to popular belief. They are given their story before they leave their editorial rooms and you only strengthen what they have to say by saying anything. They are no public communication line that means much. Policy is very definite. Ignore.

Fair use quote from 'Modern Management Technology Defined', the Admin Dictionary of Scn.