Stranded in Barbados in April and told by the travel agent that no passage to New York was available before September, he imagined walking up the gangplank of a ship and feeling the salt on the rail, and a cancellation was given to him ahead of hundreds on the waiting list so he sailed with his wife and three-year-old daughter.
Date (happened)
April 1969
stated · probable · preferred
Told / reported
18 November 1968
estimated · probable
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 1466 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 1466 surviving (non-refuted) claim: 1968-11-18 at `probable`. All claims on the node: 1969-6-23 refuted; 1968-11-18 probable (preferred). Superseded here: delta 0: 1969-06-23 at `certain` (run `corpus v1 / phase3b`) | delta 1: 1969-06-23 at `probable` (run `v1.1/l4/ceiling/c2`). 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.
23 June 1969
stated · refuted
Reasoning
|| v1.1/l7/told-close: the delivery claim this was derived from (nid 1466, 1969-6-23) was refuted by the L7 adjudication (#2363). The corrected told claim from the same lecture stands at 1968-11-18. This row is retired rather than deleted so the derivation history remains readable.
23 June 1969
stated · refuted
Why
Corrects the confidence of the told claim written by run `corpus v1 / phase3b` at delta 0 on this event; that claim is left standing per append-only. Ceiling rule #2132.
Reasoning
Confidence only; the date is not re-adjudicated and is left exactly as written. This claim is derived from the delivery claims of node 1466 and asserts `certain`, but the strongest claim that node carries is `probable`, so there is nothing for `certain` to inherit from. nid 1466 delivery claims: 1969-6-23 doubtful; 1968-11-18 probable. Walked back to `probable`, the ceiling. Whether the DATE is right is a separate question this row does not touch; if the evidence turns out to support more confidence, it will have to come from a source other than this node. || v1.1/l7/told-close: the delivery claim this was derived from (nid 1466, 1969-6-23) was refuted by the L7 adjudication (#2363). The corrected told claim from the same lecture stands at 1968-11-18. This row is retired rather than deleted so the derivation history remains readable.
Sources
Source
- Test Yourselves ¶14 (I couldn’t possibly go aboard a ship physically, there was no ship there, but in spite of the absence of a ship in the bay I walked up that gangplank of a ship that I imagined to be there.)