Neville reads out a letter from a woman new to his meetings who could not understand his books until she heard him speak, and who dreamed of letting buses pass, boarding a long black train, seeing a dead young woman restored to life and a man in white rising from a coffin, then of a crowd hurrying to be with Neville because he was about to die, and of Neville robing himself, lying in a ditch, crawling effortlessly through a small tunnel into a cave and back out again while the others struggled to follow.
Date (happened)
9 June 1959
stated · preferred
9 June 1971
stated · probable
Why
Append-only correction; the legacy 1959-06-09 row remains historical.
Reasoning
Passage 528994 explicitly derives 9 June from the letter's 11 June date. The passage omits the year, so the year is inherited from its carrier lecture nid 1055; the authoritative adjudication rejects 1959-05-10 and retains 1971-06-18. Confidence is capped at the surviving live carrier claim's probable level.
Told
18 June 1971
conclusion · probable
Why
dc1-agreement-20261004, pm-actor-551 (PM 8702)
Reasoning
1 claim, no conflict: 1971-06-18 (node:1055).
18 June 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 1055 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 1055 surviving (non-refuted) claim: 1971-6-18 at `probable`. All claims on the node: 1959-5-10 refuted; 1971-6-18 probable (preferred). Superseded here: delta 0: 1959-05-10 at `certain` (run `corpus v1 / phase3b`) | delta 1: 1959-05-10 at `probable` (run `v1.1/l4/ceiling/c2`).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.
10 May 1959
stated · refuted
Reasoning
|| v1.1/l7/told-close: the delivery claim this was derived from (nid 1055, 1959-5-10) was refuted by the L7 adjudication (#2363). The corrected told claim from the same lecture stands at 1971-6-18. This row is retired rather than deleted so the derivation history remains readable.
10 May 1959
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 1055 and asserts `certain`, but the strongest claim that node carries is `probable`, so there is nothing for `certain` to inherit from. nid 1055 delivery claims: 1959-5-10 doubtful; 1971-6-18 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 1055, 1959-5-10) was refuted by the L7 adjudication (#2363). The corrected told claim from the same lecture stands at 1971-6-18. This row is retired rather than deleted so the derivation history remains readable.
Sources
Source
- Who Paul Really Is ¶13 (I do not think the lady is here tonight . . she has been coming here recently, and she wrote me a letter, and she said, “I did not understand your books; they were given recently to me by a lady who brought me to your meetings.)