The night after his walk in the park Neville had a vision in which he lay on that same green grass with his earthly father, who appeared about fifty, radiant and robust, and he told his father that what he had dreamed the day before was now objectively real — which he takes as the literal fulfilment of the 23rd Psalm.
Date (happened)
The following night
unresolved
The following night
relative
before 1957
bound · possible
Source
qualifying source passages 528224; telling lecture nids 1032
Reasoning
Qualifying passage ids [528224] belong to telling lecture nids [1032]. Each listed lecture contributes the selected safe envelope year 1957 (MAX of its non-refuted delivery years); 1957 is the MIN across telling lectures.
before 1966
bound · possible
Source
corrected envelope; qualifying source passage 528224; telling lecture nids 1032
Why
Corrects the phase4 L6a envelope on this event from before 1957 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) 1032 that row cites, MAX(non-refuted field_delivery_year) gives 1966, not the 1957 the row carries — the bound was below its own stated rule and therefore UNSAFE: it asserted the event did not happen in 9 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 23 September 1966
bound
Reasoning
Neville recounts the completed vision in node 1803, authoritatively delivered 1966-09-23; the walk to which 'following night' refers has no calendar date in this packet.
Told / reported
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.
23 September 1966
estimated
Reasoning
Passage 544930 independently carries the event in node 1803, whose 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).
1957
stated · refuted
Source
Love Endureth (nid 1032), telling 1032-4, 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.
1957
stated · refuted
Source
Love Endureth (nid 1032), telling 1032-4, told 1957
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 1032 and asserts `certain`, but the strongest claim that node carries is `probable`, so there is nothing for `certain` to inherit from. nid 1032 delivery claims: 1957-??-?? doubtful; 1966-8-?? 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 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 ¶13 (I saw my earthly father. He looked about fifty years old. He died when he was eighty-five in the year ’59. But he looked about fifty and radiant and robust, and I was lying on the grass, right on this wonderful stretch of green luscious grass.)