Neville says people in the south write him letters asking him to interpret dreams they cannot interpret for themselves, and that he finds himself intuitive enough to do it.
Date (happened)
before 14 July 1969
bound · possible · preferred
Why
M7 dating pass (529; 525's readers, packet 044)
Reasoning
Telling lecture nid 1024 probable delivery 1969-07-14.
before 1958
bound · possible
Reasoning
Qualifying passage ids [527984] belong to telling lecture nids [1024]. Each listed lecture contributes the selected safe envelope year 1958 (MAX of its non-refuted delivery years); 1958 is the MIN across telling lectures.
before 1969
bound · possible
Why
Corrects the phase4 L6a envelope on this event from before 1958 to before 1969.
Reasoning
Envelope recompute, arithmetic only. The phase4 L6a row on this event states its own rule: each telling lecture contributes MAX of its non-refuted delivery years, and the envelope is the MIN across telling lectures. Recomputed live over lecture nid(s) 1024 that row cites, MAX(non-refuted field_delivery_year) gives 1969, not the 1958 the row carries — the bound was below its own stated rule and therefore UNSAFE: it asserted the event did not happen in 11 year(s) where it may sit. Same premise, same evidence, no re-reading and no re-judgement; only the maximum was taken correctly. The L6a row stands beside this one (append-only). Ruling: #2235 delta 1, architect 378.
Told / reported
14 July 1969
conclusion · probable
Why
dc1-agreement-20261004, pm-actor-551 (PM 8702)
Reasoning
1 claim, no conflict: 1969-07-14 (node:1024).
14 July 1969
estimated · probable
Why
Lane L7 (#2354) re-derivation. Supersedes in substance, not in storage, the refuted-date told claim(s) on this event; those rows stand per append-only.
Reasoning
Re-derived, not walked down. The existing told claim(s) on this event took their date from a delivery claim on node 1024 that the corpus has since REFUTED, so the corpus was asserting that Neville told this on a day it separately says he did not lecture. That is a contradiction rather than an over-confidence, and lowering the confidence would have hidden it instead of resolving it. The refutation stands and the told claim is the wrong side of it. Node 1024 surviving (non-refuted) claim: 1969-7-14 at `probable`. All claims on the node: 1957-??-?? refuted; 1958-3-17 refuted; 1969-7-14 probable (preferred). Superseded here: delta 0: 1958-03-17 at `certain` (run `corpus v1 / phase3b`) | delta 1: 1958-03-17 at `probable` (run `v1.1/l4/ceiling/c2`). The telling is dated by its lecture, so with the refuted date removed from consideration the surviving claim is what the telling inherits, at that claim own confidence and no higher.
17 March 1958
stated · refuted
Reasoning
|| v1.1/l7/told-close: the delivery claim this was derived from (nid 1024, 1958-3-17) was refuted by the L7 adjudication (#2363). The corrected told claim from the same lecture stands at 1969-7-14. This row is retired rather than deleted so the derivation history remains readable.
17 March 1958
stated · refuted
Why
Corrects the confidence of the told claim written by run `corpus v1 / phase3b` at delta 0 on this event; that claim is left standing per append-only. Ceiling rule #2132.
Reasoning
Confidence only; the date is not re-adjudicated and is left exactly as written. This claim is derived from the delivery claims of node 1024 and asserts `certain`, but the strongest claim that node carries is `probable`, so there is nothing for `certain` to inherit from. nid 1024 delivery claims: 1957-??-?? doubtful; 1958-3-17 doubtful; 1969-7-14 probable. Walked back to `probable`, the ceiling. Whether the DATE is right is a separate question this row does not touch; if the evidence turns out to support more confidence, it will have to come from a source other than this node. || v1.1/l7/told-close: the delivery claim this was derived from (nid 1024, 1958-3-17) was refuted by the L7 adjudication (#2363). The corrected told claim from the same lecture stands at 1969-7-14. This row is retired rather than deleted so the derivation history remains readable.
Sources
Source
- Imagination ¶43 (I find myself intuitive enough to interpret the dream of another. I asked down south (I haven’t the time here—it would take more time than I am allotted here for two weeks), but down south they write me letters asking me to explain a dream, which they fi…)