Despite warnings about muggings and murders in Central Park, Neville took his daily walk through it during a New York visit and was struck by how green and thick the grass was after the rains ended the city's long drought.
Date (happened)
the last two years in New York City
unresolved
the last two years in New York City
relative
before 1966
bound · probable
Reasoning
Neville recounts his completed Central Park walk after the rains; the past walk predates the telling.
before 23 September 1966
bound
Reasoning
Neville recounts the completed Central Park walk in node 1803, authoritatively delivered 1966-09-23; no passage phrasetoken pins the walk more narrowly.
between 1954 and 1957
stated · probable
Source
"During the last few years in New York City", told in Love Endureth (nid 1032)
before August 1966
bound · probable
Source
passage 528223 recounts the park walk as a past event in lecture nid 1032
Why
Conservative upper bound; the existing range remains untouched under append-only rules.
Reasoning
The lecture's surviving delivery evidence places it after approximately August 1966, and the walk is explicitly retrospective, so it occurred before that bound. The phrase 'last few years in New York City' supplies no calendar years and does not independently support the existing 1954–1957 range.
Told / reported
23 September 1966
estimated
Reasoning
Node 1803's authoritative chrome dateline establishes delivery on 1966-09-23. || v1.1 type repair: written as `stated` by run v1.1/l4/actor453/17500-17999-b1, retyped `estimated` — the claim cites node 1803, not a passage, so it is this lane's inference rather than something Neville said in so many words (#2117).
after August 1966
estimated · probable
Source
nid 1032 surviving delivery claim after refutation. All claims: 1957-??-?? refuted; 1966-8-?? probable (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 1032 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 1032 surviving (non-refuted) claim: 1966-8-?? at `probable`. All claims on the node: 1957-??-?? refuted; 1966-8-?? probable (preferred). Superseded here: delta 0: 1957-00-00 at `certain` (run `corpus v1 / phase3b`) | delta 1: 1957-00-00 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.
1957
stated · refuted
Source
Love Endureth (nid 1032), telling 1032-3, told 1957
Reasoning
|| v1.1/l7/told-close: the delivery claim this was derived from (nid 1032, 1957--) was refuted by the L7 adjudication (#2363). The corrected told claim from the same lecture stands at 1966-8-?. This row is retired rather than deleted so the derivation history remains readable.
Sources
Source
- Love Endures ¶12 (But I felt regardless of all these rumors I must go through the park. And so, I go for my daily walk and I started through the park. I can’t tell you how green the grass was, that luscious, luscious green, and it was so thick.)
- Love Endures ¶12 (Regardless of these warnings, one day I felt an urge to go for a walk in the park. It had rained a great deal that spring, and I can’t tell you my thrill as I walked through the park and enjoyed the green, green grass.)