Neville tells of his tailor, who having learned the colour and cut he wanted told him to leave the making of the suit to him, imagining the suit before ever cutting the cloth.
Date (happened)
before 1960
bound · possible
Reasoning
Qualifying passage ids [529441] belong to telling lecture nids [1072]. Each listed lecture contributes the selected safe envelope year 1960 (MAX of its non-refuted delivery years); 1960 is the MIN across telling lectures.
before 1969
bound · possible
Source
qualifying source passages 552221; telling lecture nids 2042
Reasoning
Qualifying passage ids [552221] belong to telling lecture nids [2042]. Each listed lecture contributes the selected safe envelope year 1969 (MAX of its non-refuted delivery years); 1969 is the MIN across telling lectures.
before 1969
bound · possible
Why
Corrects the phase4 L6a envelope on this event from before 1960 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) 1072 that row cites, MAX(non-refuted field_delivery_year) gives 1969, not the 1960 the row carries — the bound was below its own stated rule and therefore UNSAFE: it asserted the event did not happen in 9 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.
before 16 May 1969
bound
Source
telling lecture nid 2042, certain delivery 1969-05-16
Why
Tightens the phase4 L6a envelope from before 1969 to before 1969-05-16.
Reasoning
L6a envelope tightened to the telling day of nid 2042 (certain delivery 1969-05-16); same premise, finer precision. The phase4 L6a bound on this event is `before 1969`, an envelope over delivery YEARS computed without reading text. Its premise is that the fact is true by the time it is told; on that same premise the DAY of the telling is a strictly better upper bound. Nothing is re-decided — the bound is stated to the precision the evidence always supported. The delivery claim for 1969-05-16 on nid 2042 is held at `certain` by the corpus, which is what carries this claim. #2274; the L6a row stands beside this one.
Told
16 May 1969
conclusion
Why
dc1-agreement-20261004, pm-actor-551 (PM 8702)
Reasoning
All 2 claims agree on 1969-05-16: node:2042; node:1072.
16 May 1969
stated
Source
Spiritual Sensation (nid 2042), telling 2042-5, told 1969-05-16
16 May 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 1072 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 1072 surviving (non-refuted) claim: 1969-5-16 at `probable`. All claims on the node: 1960-??-?? refuted; 1969-5-16 probable (preferred). Superseded here: delta 0: 1960-00-00 at `certain` (run `corpus v1 / phase3b`) | delta 2: 1960-00-00 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.
1960
stated · refuted
Reasoning
|| v1.1/l7/told-close: the delivery claim this was derived from (nid 1072, 1960--) was refuted by the L7 adjudication (#2363). The corrected told claim from the same lecture stands at 1969-5-16. This row is retired rather than deleted so the derivation history remains readable.
1960
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 1072 and asserts `certain`, but the strongest claim that node carries is `probable`, so there is nothing for `certain` to inherit from. nid 1072 delivery claims: 1960-??-?? doubtful; 1969-5-16 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 1072, 1960--) was refuted by the L7 adjudication (#2363). The corrected told claim from the same lecture stands at 1969-5-16. This row is retired rather than deleted so the derivation history remains readable.
Sources
Source
- The Lord's Anointed ¶28 (My tailor took a piece of cloth that had no shape, and when he discovered what I wanted as to color, he said, “Do you want single-breasted, double-breasted? Single breasted, all right. Now leave it to me, Neville, I know more about making a suit than you…)