Visiting the family in New York City about five years ago, the boy Neville Mark came up to Neville and said he felt that if he could turn around he would see who he really was, that he was wearing a mask and could not wait to die - which upset his mother, a poor girl who had married wealth and feared anything to do with death.
Date (happened)
c. 1964
estimated · probable · preferred
Source
passage 549845, 'about five years ago, while visiting them in New York City'; recomputed against node 1950's surviving delivery claim d2 (1969-04-28, certain)
Why
Supersedes the arithmetic behind the existing d0 (1965), which rests on the refuted 1970-06-22 delivery date for the same lecture; d0 is left unaltered per append-only.
Reasoning
The passage's own words place the visit 'about five years ago' relative to the telling. The lecture's own delivery claims for node 1950 include a REFUTED 1970-06-22 (d0) and a surviving, certain 1969-04-28 (d2, corroborated by two independently-scraped 'A Riddle' transcripts' matching chrome bylines). The existing d0 field_date claim (1965) is five years before the refuted date, not the surviving one; five years before 1969-04-28 is circa 1964. This is the same correction the l7 rederive already applied to this event's field_told claim, now applied to field_date. Kept at probable rather than the delivery claim's certain because 'about five years' is itself an approximate figure.
before 1969
bound · probable
Source
passage 531401 / node 1144 delivery d2
Reasoning
Direct temporal wording places this event before the telling lecture.
c. 1965
stated · refuted
Source
"About five years ago", told in A Riddle (nid 1950)
Why
pm-actor-525: refuted by the M7 dating pass (529; 525's readers, packet 023): computed from node 1950's since-refuted 1970-06-22 delivery; the corrected anchor is 1969-04-28
c. 1959
stated · refuted
Source
"About five years ago", told in A Riddle (nid 1144)
Why
pm-actor-525: refuted by the M7 dating pass (529; 525's readers, packet 023): computed from node 1144's since-refuted 1964-02-21/1967-03-10 delivery; the corrected anchor is 1969-04-28
Told
28 April 1969
estimated
Source
nid 1950 surviving delivery claim after refutation. All claims: 1970-6-22 refuted; 1969-4-28 probable; 1969-4-28 certain (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 1950 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 1950 surviving (non-refuted) claim: 1969-4-28 at `certain`. All claims on the node: 1970-6-22 refuted; 1969-4-28 probable; 1969-4-28 certain (preferred). Superseded here: delta 0: 1970-06-22 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.
28 April 1969
estimated · probable
Source
nid 1144 surviving delivery claim after refutation. All claims: 1964-2-21 refuted; 1967-3-10 refuted; 1969-4-28 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 1144 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 1144 surviving (non-refuted) claim: 1969-4-28 at `probable`. All claims on the node: 1964-2-21 refuted; 1967-3-10 refuted; 1969-4-28 probable (preferred). Superseded here: delta 0: 1967-03-10 at `certain` (run `corpus v1 / phase3b`) | delta 1: 1967-03-10 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.
22 June 1970
stated · refuted
Source
A Riddle (nid 1950), telling 1950-1, told 1970-06-22
Reasoning
|| v1.1/l7/told-close: the delivery claim this was derived from (nid 1950, 1970-6-22) was refuted by the L7 adjudication (#2363). The corrected told claim from the same lecture stands at 1969-4-28. This row is retired rather than deleted so the derivation history remains readable.
10 March 1967
stated · refuted
Source
A Riddle (nid 1144), telling 1144-1, told 1967-03-10
Reasoning
|| v1.1/l7/told-close: the delivery claim this was derived from (nid 1144, 1967-3-10) was refuted by the L7 adjudication (#2363). The corrected told claim from the same lecture stands at 1969-4-28. This row is retired rather than deleted so the derivation history remains readable.
Sources
Source
- The Riddle ¶5 (About five years ago, while visiting them in New York City, the little boy came in, walked over to me and said: “You know, Neville. I feel that if I could turn around I would see who I really am. I know I am wearing a mask and I can’t wait to die, cause …)