Neville, who once believed in astrology himself, taught it years ago to a retired school teacher friend named Norma, who became a professional astrologer; when a breeze blew her papers she drew the wrong chart and told a client his venture would succeed, and the promised $100 check arrived anyway - she remained an astrologer until her death though she knew the charts meant nothing.
Norma accidentally drew a chart for a person born ten years later because wind had turned her ephemeris pages, yet her confident reading persuaded the businessman.
Date (happened)
before 1969
bound · possible
Reasoning
Qualifying passage ids [539018] belong to telling lecture nids [1394]. Each listed lecture contributes the selected safe envelope year 1969 (MAX of its non-refuted delivery years); 1969 is the MIN across telling lectures.
before 4 November 1968
bound
Reasoning
Neville frames the whole Norma episode as something that happened 'years ago', recounted in this lecture; the recollection cannot postdate its own telling, so the corrected, certain delivery date of nid 1394 (1968-11-04, per the L7 re-derivation after the 1969-10-16 claim was refuted) is a valid upper bound. This supersedes the stale year-level 'before 1969' bound, which was computed before that refutation and used the wrong envelope year; it is finer (day vs year precision) from the same underlying witness family, which the brief accepts as a refinement rather than a duplicate.
Told
4 November 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 1394 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 1394 surviving (non-refuted) claim: 1968-11-4 at `certain`. All claims on the node: 1968-11-4 certain; 1969-10-16 refuted; 1968-11-4 certain (preferred). Superseded here: delta 0: 1969-10-16 at `certain` (run `corpus v1 / phase3b`).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 October 1969
stated · refuted
Reasoning
|| v1.1/l7/told-close: the delivery claim this was derived from (nid 1394, 1969-10-16) was refuted by the L7 adjudication (#2363). The corrected told claim from the same lecture stands at 1968-11-4. This row is retired rather than deleted so the derivation history remains readable.