Jen told Neville by telephone that on her current nursing job, with the TV aerial blown flat by high winds and no picture, the little boy of the house put both hands on the set, said his imagination would do it, and a perfect picture came.
Date (happened)
before 1964
bound · possible · preferred
Source
qualifying source passages 554223; telling lecture nids 2153
Reasoning
Qualifying passage ids [554223] belong to telling lecture nids [2153]. Each listed lecture contributes the selected safe envelope year 1964 (MAX of its non-refuted delivery years); 1964 is the MIN across telling lectures.
before 1972
bound · refuted
Why
pm-actor-525: refuted by the M7 dating pass (529; 525's readers, packet 037): Rests on lecture 1535's stale pre-correction 1972 envelope; that 1972-03-06 telling is itself refuted.
Reasoning
Qualifying passage ids [542201] belong to telling lecture nids [1535]. Each listed lecture contributes the selected safe envelope year 1972 (MAX of its non-refuted delivery years); 1972 is the MIN across telling lectures.
Told
6 March 1964
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 1535 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 1535 surviving (non-refuted) claim: 1964-3-6 at `probable`. All claims on the node: 1972-3-6 refuted; 1972-3-6 refuted; 1964-3-6 probable (preferred). Superseded here: delta 0: 1972-03-06 at `certain` (run `corpus v1 / phase3b`) | delta 1: 1972-03-06 at `probable` (run `v1.1/l4/ceiling/c2`).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.
6 March 1972
stated · refuted
Reasoning
|| v1.1/l7/told-close: the delivery claim this was derived from (nid 1535, 1972-3-6) was refuted by the L7 adjudication (#2363). The corrected told claim from the same lecture stands at 1964-3-6. This row is retired rather than deleted so the derivation history remains readable.
6 March 1972
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 1535 and asserts `certain`, but the strongest claim that node carries is `probable`, so there is nothing for `certain` to inherit from. nid 1535 delivery claims: 1972-3-6 doubtful; 1972-3-6 doubtful; 1964-3-6 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 1535, 1972-3-6) was refuted by the L7 adjudication (#2363). The corrected told claim from the same lecture stands at 1964-3-6. This row is retired rather than deleted so the derivation history remains readable.
Sources
Source
- Know What You Want (Our Real Belief) ¶26 (And Jen told me over the telephone because she’s working, she can’t come here now, that the little boy only put his hands on it and swore that there would come a picture, and the picture came to Jen’s amazement, but not to the boy’s.)