He says of Dorothy that she was present by invitation at the last supper - his own mystical Last Supper experience - and tells the audience not to discount it.
Date (happened)
before 28 June 1968
bound · preferred
Why
M7 dating pass (529; 525's readers, packet 041)
Reasoning
Tightens the envelope to the certain telling day, the stale 1968-06-02 catalogue date already being refuted.
before 1968
bound · possible
Reasoning
Qualifying passage ids [538205] belong to telling lecture nids [1362]. Each listed lecture contributes the selected safe envelope year 1968 (MAX of its non-refuted delivery years); 1968 is the MIN across telling lectures.
Told / reported
28 June 1968
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 1362 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 1362 surviving (non-refuted) claim: 1968-6-28 at `certain`. All claims on the node: 1968-6-2 refuted; 1968-6-28 certain (preferred). Superseded here: delta 0: 1968-06-02 at `certain` (run `corpus v1 / phase3b`).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.
2 June 1968
stated · refuted
Reasoning
|| v1.1/l7/told-close: the delivery claim this was derived from (nid 1362, 1968-6-2) was refuted by the L7 adjudication (#2363). The corrected told claim from the same lecture stands at 1968-6-28. This row is retired rather than deleted so the derivation history remains readable.