He states that he is one of nine brothers and one sister in the Goddard family, and that he is the fourth son.
Date (happened)
before 1964
bound · possible
Reasoning
Qualifying passage ids [531121] belong to telling lecture nids [1134]. Each listed lecture contributes the selected safe envelope year 1964 (MAX of its non-refuted delivery years); 1964 is the MIN across telling lectures.
before 1971
bound · possible
Why
Corrects the phase4 L6a envelope on this event from before 1964 to before 1971.
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) 1134 that row cites, MAX(non-refuted field_delivery_year) gives 1971, not the 1964 the row carries — the bound was below its own stated rule and therefore UNSAFE: it asserted the event did not happen in 7 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 25 June 1971
bound · probable
Why
Day-level tightening after L7 delivery re-derivation.
Reasoning
The sibling-position statement is true by the time Neville states it. L7 refuted the former 1964 delivery and retained nid 1134's 1971-06-25 delivery at probable confidence. The existing corrected envelope reaches only before 1971/possible; this appends the supported day precision without exceeding the lecture's confidence ceiling.
Told / reported
25 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 1134 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 1134 surviving (non-refuted) claim: 1971-6-25 at `probable`. All claims on the node: 1964-1-31 refuted; 1971-6-25 probable (preferred). Superseded here: delta 0: 1964-01-31 at `certain` (run `corpus v1 / phase3b`) | delta 1: 1964-01-31 at `probable` (run `v1.1/l4/ceiling/c2`).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.
31 January 1964
stated · refuted
Reasoning
|| v1.1/l7/told-close: the delivery claim this was derived from (nid 1134, 1964-1-31) was refuted by the L7 adjudication (#2363). The corrected told claim from the same lecture stands at 1971-6-25. This row is retired rather than deleted so the derivation history remains readable.
31 January 1964
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 1134 and asserts `certain`, but the strongest claim that node carries is `probable`, so there is nothing for `certain` to inherit from. nid 1134 delivery claims: 1964-1-31 doubtful; 1971-6-25 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 1134, 1964-1-31) was refuted by the L7 adjudication (#2363). The corrected told claim from the same lecture stands at 1971-6-25. This row is retired rather than deleted so the derivation history remains readable.