Neville tells of a New York beauty-parlor receptionist he knew who never grossed more than seventy-eight dollars a week; on his prompting she imagined in her bath that something wonderful was happening now, and within the week her wealthy bachelor friend settled a detached, tax-paid income of $550 a month on her; later, wanting a winter in Barbados she slept under a mosquito net and he gave her the winter in Barbados as a Christmas present, three years running.
Date (happened)
between 1960 and 1965
unresolved
between 1960 and 1965
stated · probable · preferred
No date
relative · probable
Reasoning
A few years ago names no exact count or safe calendar bounds. It remains relative; probable records the vague but direct temporal statement.
Told
1 February 1966
conclusion
Why
dc1-agreement-20261004, pm-actor-551 (PM 8702)
Reasoning
1 claim, no conflict: 1966-02-01 (node:1236).
1 February 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 1236 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 1236 surviving (non-refuted) claim: 1966-2-1 at `certain`. All claims on the node: 1966-2-1 certain (preferred); 1967-1-16 refuted. Superseded here: delta 0: 1967-01-16 at `certain` (run `corpus v1 / phase3b`).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.
16 January 1967
stated · refuted
Reasoning
|| v1.1/l7/told-close: the delivery claim this was derived from (nid 1236, 1967-1-16) was refuted by the L7 adjudication (#2363). The corrected told claim from the same lecture stands at 1966-2-1. This row is retired rather than deleted so the derivation history remains readable.
Sources
Source
- Time to Act ¶14 (I said to her, “What are you doing about the law that you know?” “But, Neville, I don’t know of anyone who would give me anything.” I said, “I’m not asking you to know anyone. This whole vast world is yourself pushed out.)