Last year Neville returned to Barbados for a few months and made out his will, naming his brother and two nephews, whom he trusts implicitly, as co-trustees.
Told / reported
14 October 1966
estimated
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 1235 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 1235 surviving (non-refuted) claim: 1966-10-14 at `certain`. All claims on the node: 1966-??-?? certain; 1967-1-19 refuted; 1966-10-14 certain (preferred). Superseded here: delta 0: 1967-01-19 at `certain` (run `corpus v1 / phase3b`). 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.
19 January 1967
stated · refuted
Reasoning
|| v1.1/l7/told-close: the delivery claim this was derived from (nid 1235, 1967-1-19) was refuted by the L7 adjudication (#2363). The corrected told claim from the same lecture stands at 1966-10-14. This row is retired rather than deleted so the derivation history remains readable.
Sources
Source
- What Must We Do ¶15 (Last year I went back to Barbados and I spent a few months. I made out a will and I got my brother and two nephews that I knew, I trust them implicitly, and they were co-trustees of my will.)