A friend of Neville's, an actor who had made a picture with Rita Hayworth in which he was shot in Trinidad, was struck on the head in Hollywood by a rival, lost about ten years of memory, and is now institutionalised; when Neville telephones him he says only that he was wounded in Trinidad.
Date (happened)
c. 1900
stated · doubtful · preferred
Reasoning
|| v1.1/l1.4/sentinel1900: year 1900 here is not a date. `corpus v1 / phase3b` emitted it as a placeholder for "unknown, sometime before the telling" whenever the speaker used a vague temporal phrase — this row's own source note is the phrase. The same sentinel was identified and converged on in run v1.1/l0.5/retype/w1-conv. It carried confidence `probable`, which no evidence supported. Lowered to `doubtful`; an honest `before 1966-10-14` bound is appended alongside from the telling lecture (nid 1235). Nothing deleted, no year invented.
before 14 October 1966
bound
Source
bound from the telling lecture nid 1235 (1966-10-14)
Reasoning
The event is told in the past tense in nid 1235, delivered 1966-10-14 (that claim's confidence: certain, preferred), so it had happened by that date. This is the same premise phase4 L6a and L4.5 rest on, stated at the precision the evidence actually supports rather than as a fabricated year. It replaces nothing: the 1900 placeholder row remains, lowered, as the record of what phase3b did. `bound` is never `preferred`, so this does not change what the event displays.
Told
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 Superseded here: delta 0: 1967-01-19 at `certain` (run `corpus v1 / phase3b`).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 ¶29 (When I called him and they let me speak to him on the telephone, he would say the same old thing, “I was wounded in Trinidad. I was wounded.”)