Neville told Norma that he no longer believed in astrology but in his intuitive power, and offered to show her how to see in a chart whatever a client wanted, so that she would be self-persuaded.
The source records Neville's conclusion that Norma's outcome demonstrated belief rather than astrological causation and his later abandonment of astrology.
Date (happened)
before 1969
bound · possible
Reasoning
Qualifying passage ids [539039] 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.
Told / reported
4 November 1968
estimated · preferred
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 Superseded here: delta 0: 1969-10-16 at `certain` (run `corpus v1 / phase3b`).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.