Neville tells his brother that although he earns no money from his work he has as much as any member of the family through his stock in the business, and says he was shown all the parts he could play before birth and chose to come through Joseph and Wilhelmina Goddard on a tiny unknown island because he knew the family would make the money that would give him his freedom.
Date (happened)
before 1965
bound · possible
Reasoning
Qualifying passage ids [543384] belong to telling lecture nids [1759]. Each listed lecture contributes the selected safe envelope year 1965 (MAX of its non-refuted delivery years); 1965 is the MIN across telling lectures.
before 1966
bound · possible
Why
Corrects the phase4 L6a envelope on this event from before 1965 to before 1966.
Reasoning
Envelope recompute, arithmetic only. The phase4 L6a row on this event states its own rule: each telling lecture contributes MAX of its non-refuted delivery years, and the envelope is the MIN across telling lectures. Recomputed live over lecture nid(s) 1759 that row cites, MAX(non-refuted field_delivery_year) gives 1966, not the 1965 the row carries — the bound was below its own stated rule and therefore UNSAFE: it asserted the event did not happen in 1 year(s) where it may sit. Same premise, same evidence, no re-reading and no re-judgement; only the maximum was taken correctly. The L6a row stands beside this one (append-only). Ruling: #2235 delta 1, architect 378.
before 6 December 1966
bound
Why
M7 dating pass (529; 525's readers, packet 039)
Reasoning
Node 1759's only surviving delivery claim is 1966-12-06 (certain); the 1965-02-02 stated date is refuted.
Told / reported
6 December 1966
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 1759 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 1759 surviving (non-refuted) claim: 1966-12-6 at `certain`. All claims on the node: 1965-2-2 refuted; 1966-11-30 refuted; 1966-12-1 refuted; 1966-12-6 certain (preferred). Superseded here: delta 0: 1965-02-02 at `certain` (run `corpus v1 / phase3b`).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 February 1965
stated · refuted
Reasoning
|| v1.1/l7/told-close: the delivery claim this was derived from (nid 1759, 1965-2-2) was refuted by the L7 adjudication (#2363). The corrected told claim from the same lecture stands at 1966-12-6. This row is retired rather than deleted so the derivation history remains readable.
Sources
Source
- Word 2 ¶28 (That’s why I came through Joseph and Wilhelmina Goddard. So I knew you could be replaced and you were going to make it, so I came through so that you may make it and give me the freedom that I now enjoy.)