Even if you do find a specific incident that appears to contain a very good reason for the phenomenon at hand. And even if you do process that incident, and the undesirable phenomenon goes away, don't lead the client to believe that that was only and specifically because we handled the "exact cause" of it.
Things aren't really caused in a linear cause-effect kind of way. It might sometimes appear or work like that. But generally speaking there will always be multiple, simultaneous causes. Everything is interconnected. It is not even very correct to say that anything causes anything else. Stuff happens because it is part of the reality of what is happening. Any event is its own cause, for that matter. Cause and effect are simultaneous. The apparency that first the cause happens, and then, some time later, the effect happens somewhere else -- that is only how it might appear from a limited perspective.
Each technique is built on a different model. If the technique works, all it means is that the technique worked. It doesn't mean that the model is now the exact, precise reason for the previously observed phenomenon.
It is wise to handle a certain issue in several distinctly different ways. Even and particularly when they overlap and are to some degree mutually exclusive in their explanations.
You might handle a certain issue by re-experiencing incidents, by talking with entities, by reframing, by bringing back soul parts, by visualizing it being different, and so forth. Each approach in itself can work, but for a somewhat different reason. If you now do several of them, we sort of move beyond the theoretical reasons. The client will be changed, more because she simply has changed, than because of any particular reason that was wiped out.
In addressing a specific issue, preferably do several things about it. If the client walks in being mad about having had a fight with her boyfriend, resolve some undesirable feelings with re-experiencing, integrate a polarity, bring back some resourceful parts, reframe the whole thing, and visualize how it would be if it were different. That would be a very thorough and complete handling.
I don't mean that you should automatically do all the techniques you know of on anything. Just think along the lines of doing several things. Address stuff by getting it from several different directions. You should of course pick the ones that are the most applicable and effective. And use each one at the most opportune time, of course.
A module is based on the same kind of principle, just done really exhaustively. We take a really big subject and then we work it over in just about any way we can think of, from many different angles, with many different techniques.
The philosophy is not just that we cover all causes and reasons that way. It is also that we establish a very thorough change that isn't dependent on anything in particular. It doesn't depend on any particular explanation or realization or technique. She has changed, and there will be lots of reasons for it. If one or two of them get challenged in life, it doesn't matter, there will be a hundred other reasons for her to hold on to her change.
The individual is the cause of her own change. It is better if that gets established as a general reality than that any particular subject or technique or reason gets the credit. A dependence on precise reasons and exact techniques is not helpful for the client in the long run.
The facilitator might operate with very exact rules, and might know exactly what it was that made the client change in a specific process. Those rules and observations don't have the same value for the client. On the contrary, the client is usually better helped by being left with a general feeling of empowerment, new perceptions, added resources and abilities, than with any attention on what exactly the facilitator did that "caused" that.