Neville received a letter that day from a friend in Los Angeles who had attended his meetings twice a week for three years, describing a vision in which a woman said 'Neville has risen' and pointed to a corridor filled with golden light where he knew the Lord stood.
Date (happened)
21 January 1958
unresolved
21 January 1958
stated · preferred
c. 1971
estimated · probable
Why
Supersedes the day-precision of the standing d0 claim in substance, not in storage; d0 stands per append-only but rests on a delivery claim the corpus has since refuted.
Reasoning
The standing field_date (1958-01-21, stated/certain, source passage 528543) was reached by counting 'last Tuesday morning' back from the lecture's then-accepted delivery date of 1958-01-27. That delivery claim has since been refuted, and the lecture's only surviving delivery claim is 1971-??-?? at probable with no month or day. The relative marker 'last Tuesday' no longer has a valid anchor to resolve to a specific date, so the event can only be placed circa the surviving delivery year, at that claim's own confidence ceiling.
Told
1971
conclusion · probable
Why
dc1-agreement-20261004, pm-actor-551 (PM 8702)
Reasoning
1 claim, no conflict: 1971 (node:1041).
1971
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 1041 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 1041 surviving (non-refuted) claim: 1971-??-?? at `probable`. All claims on the node: 1958-1-27 refuted; 1971-??-?? probable (preferred). Superseded here: delta 0: 1958-01-27 at `certain` (run `corpus v1 / phase3b`) | delta 1: 1958-01-27 at `probable` (run `v1.1/l4/ceiling/c2`).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.
27 January 1958
stated · refuted
Reasoning
|| v1.1/l7/told-close: the delivery claim this was derived from (nid 1041, 1958-1-27) was refuted by the L7 adjudication (#2363). The corrected told claim from the same lecture stands at 1971-?-?. This row is retired rather than deleted so the derivation history remains readable.
27 January 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 1041 and asserts `certain`, but the strongest claim that node carries is `probable`, so there is nothing for `certain` to inherit from. nid 1041 delivery claims: 1958-1-27 refuted; 1971-??-?? 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 1041, 1958-1-27) was refuted by the L7 adjudication (#2363). The corrected told claim from the same lecture stands at 1971-?-?. This row is retired rather than deleted so the derivation history remains readable.
Sources
Source
- Who Is the Son of Man ¶9 (But he said to me in this letter which I got today: “Last Tuesday morning, early in the morning, I had a vision; and a woman said to me, ‘Neville has risen. Look down there,’ and she pointed down to the end of the corridor.)