A charming lady from out of town came to Neville's living room to consult him about prayer and brought her eight-year-old son, who announced he now knew how to pray and wanted a collie puppy; despite his mother's objections he persisted in imagining hugging the puppy every night, and two months later his essay for a "Kindness to Animals Week" contest won, out of five thousand, a collie puppy presented by the mayor.
Date (happened)
before 1958
bound · possible
Reasoning
Qualifying passage ids [552987] belong to telling lecture nids [2095]. Each listed lecture contributes the selected safe envelope year 1958 (MAX of its non-refuted delivery years); 1958 is the MIN across telling lectures.
before 17 February 1958
bound · doubtful
Why
Tightens the phase4 L6a envelope from before 1958 to before 1958-02-17.
Reasoning
L6a envelope tightened to the telling day of nid 2095 (certain delivery 1958-02-17); same premise, finer precision. The phase4 L6a bound on this event is `before 1958`, an envelope over delivery YEARS computed without reading text. Its premise is that the fact is true by the time it is told; on that same premise the DAY of the telling is a strictly better upper bound. Nothing is re-decided — the bound is stated to the precision the evidence always supported. The delivery claim for 1958-02-17 on nid 2095 is held at `certain` by the corpus, which is what carries this claim. #2274; the L6a row stands beside this one. || v1.1/l7/passage-inherit: lowered `certain` -> `doubtful`. This date was inherited from lecture node 2095, whose own 1958-02-17 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.
before 31 July 1951
bound
Why
Append-only correction beside obsolete 1958-derived bounds.
Reasoning
The whole narrative, including the prize two months after the interview, is retrospective in the July 1951 carrier. With no delivery day, July 31 is the safe upper ceiling; no exact occurrence month is invented.
Told
July 1951
conclusion
Why
dc1-agreement-20261004, pm-actor-551 (PM 8702)
Reasoning
1 claim, no conflict: 1951-07 (node:2095).
July 1951
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 2095 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 2095 surviving (non-refuted) claim: 1951-7-?? at `certain`. All claims on the node: 1951-7-?? certain (preferred); 1951-??-?? certain; 1951-7-?? probable; 1958-2-17 refuted; 1951-7-?? probable; 1951-7-?? possible. Superseded here: delta 0: 1958-02-17 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.
17 February 1958
stated · refuted
Reasoning
|| v1.1/l7/told-close: the delivery claim this was derived from (nid 2095, 1958-2-17) was refuted by the L7 adjudication (#2363). The corrected told claim from the same lecture stands at 1951-7-?. This row is retired rather than deleted so the derivation history remains readable.
Sources
Source
- Answered Prayer ¶11 (One of the loveliest examples of an answered prayer I witnessed in my own living room. A very charming lady from out of town came to see me concerning prayer.)