He refers in passing to his present life — sleeping at 1025 Carol Drive, and thinking now from the lecture room of his home where his wife is.
The 1964 Citizen-News notice names Neville and his wife as Victoria Goddard's parents at 1025 Carol Drive.
Date (happened)
between 1960 and 1 October 1972
unresolved
between 1960 and 1 October 1972
estimated · probable · preferred
Reasoning
moved in about 1960: "I've been here for six years" (p534474, 1966-02-22), "four and a half years" (p533227, 1965-05-28), "ten years in the present apartment" (p541585, 1971-04-16); 1025 Carol Dr. named in the 1964 Citizen-News (p119668); he died at his West Hollywood home on 1972-10-01 (20313, 20322)
26 May 1969
stated · doubtful
Reasoning
|| v1.1/l7/passage-inherit: lowered `certain` -> `doubtful`. This date was inherited from lecture node 1928, whose own 1969-05-26 delivery claim has been refuted, and no other node in the corpus holds that date live — so the only witness for this date is one the corpus has disproved. Lowered, never refuted (#2461 §1 rule (b)): what collapsed is the evidence for WHEN, not the event. This row was reached through a PASSAGE source, which every earlier rule-(b) pass was structurally blind to.
7 April 1964
stated
Why
1025 Carol Drive, West Hollywood.
Reasoning
The newspaper notice directly gives the family address and publication date; it is evidence of residence by that date.
between February 1960 and 22 February 1966
relative · probable
Reasoning
Six years of residency ending at the lecture's certain 1966-02-22 delivery date puts the move-in circa February 1960.
c. 1961
estimated · probable
Why
This corrects the title's implicit 1970 reference year -- the legacy claim it likely drew from is now the demoted, doubtful one.
Reasoning
Neville states he has lived in the apartment 'ten years' as of this lecture; the lecture's certain, document-native chrome-header date is 1971-04-16 (not the demoted legacy 1970-04-16 claim the event's title rests on), so counting back ten rounded years gives circa 1961 for the move-in date. Held to probable rather than certain because 'ten years' is a round figure, not an exact duration.
Told / reported
4 June 1971
estimated · possible
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 1928 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 1928 surviving (non-refuted) claim: 1971-6-4 at `possible`. All claims on the node: 1969-5-26 refuted; 1971-6-4 possible (preferred). Superseded here: delta 0: 1969-05-26 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.
22 February 1966
estimated
Reasoning
Single, uncontested certain delivery claim.
16 April 1971
estimated
Reasoning
The remark is made during this lecture, whose certain, preferred delivery claim (a document-native chrome header, not the demoted legacy catalog entry) is 1971-04-16.
26 May 1969
stated · refuted
Reasoning
|| v1.1/l7/told-close: the delivery claim this was derived from (nid 1928, 1969-5-26) was refuted by the L7 adjudication (#2363). The corrected told claim from the same lecture stands at 1971-6-4. This row is retired rather than deleted so the derivation history remains readable.