Neville, his wife and small daughter flew from Barbados to Trinidad to take a bauxite freighter from Port-of-Spain to Mobile, Alabama; the captain briefed him on meal times and warned him not to press any buttons because it was a union ship.
Date (happened)
before 1968
bound · possible
Reasoning
Qualifying passage ids [528431] belong to telling lecture nids [1036]. Each listed lecture contributes the selected safe envelope year 1968 (MAX of its non-refuted delivery years); 1968 is the MIN across telling lectures.
before 1970
bound · possible
Why
Corrects the phase4 L6a envelope on this event from before 1968 to before 1970.
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) 1036 that row cites, MAX(non-refuted field_delivery_year) gives 1970, not the 1968 the row carries — the bound was below its own stated rule and therefore UNSAFE: it asserted the event did not happen in 2 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.
c. 1946
estimated · possible
Why
M7 dating pass (529; 525's readers, packet 045): its source passage 528431 does not exist on www: left off
Reasoning
The Barbados-to-Trinidad flight before the freighter, the small daughter and wife Catherine, and the established 1946 postwar Barbados trip together fit this as that trip's return leg.
Told / reported
1970
estimated
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 1036 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 1036 surviving (non-refuted) claim: 1970-??-?? at `certain`. All claims on the node: 1957-??-?? refuted; 1968-5-10 refuted; 1970-??-?? certain (preferred). Superseded here: delta 0: 1968-05-10 at `certain` (run `corpus v1 / phase3b`). 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.
10 May 1968
stated · refuted
Reasoning
|| v1.1/l7/told-close: the delivery claim this was derived from (nid 1036, 1968-5-10) was refuted by the L7 adjudication (#2363). The corrected told claim from the same lecture stands at 1970-?-?. This row is retired rather than deleted so the derivation history remains readable.
Sources
Source
- The Divine Body ¶18 (He said, “I am dressed for the entire voyage, Mr. Goddard. We have our breakfast between 8:00 and 9:00, our lunch between 12:00 and 1:00, and our dinner between 5:00 and 6:00.)