Neville reads from a letter a woman friend wrote him about two dreams: in one she met a friend named Jack and told him she thought he had died, and he answered that it was his wife who died; in another she met an old high-school flame and reminisced with him so naturally, though she had not seen him since 1940 and her mother had written her years ago that he had died.
Date (happened)
between 1940 and 1960
unresolved
between 1940 and 1960
stated · probable · preferred
before 16 May 1969
bound · probable
Reasoning
Passage 529450 quotes the completed dreams from a letter Neville had already received. The containing lecture node 1072 stands at 1969-05-16 with probable confidence, so the dreams and letter predate that day at no greater confidence. The passage's 1940 reference dates the woman's last physical meeting with her former flame, not the dreams.
Told
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 Superseded here: delta 0: 1960-00-00 at `certain` (run `corpus v1 / phase3b`) | delta 1: 1960-00-00 at `probable` (run `v1.1/l4/ceiling/c2`).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 ¶37 (She said in her letter to me, “I found myself in a dream talking to a friend that I knew well. His name is Jack. I said to Jack, ‘Well, Jack, I thought you died.’ He said, ‘No, it was my wife who died.’”)