Neville says his own experience came upon him suddenly, without warning, twelve years earlier in the city where he is speaking, so that he too could say he was 'untimely born'.
Date (happened)
1944
conclusion
Why
dc1-agreement-20261004, pm-actor-551 (PM 8702)
Reasoning
1 claim, no conflict: 1944 (passage:555007).
-
Told / reported
1972
stated · refuted
Reasoning
|| v1.1/l7/told-close: the delivery claim this was derived from (nid 2183, 1972--) was refuted by the L7 adjudication (#2363). The corrected told claim from the same lecture stands at 1968-7-17. This row is retired rather than deleted so the derivation history remains readable.
17 July 1968
estimated · refuted
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 2183 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 2183 surviving (non-refuted) claim: 1968-7-17 at `certain`. All claims on the node: 1956-??-?? refuted; 1958-10-6 refuted; 1964-3-9 refuted; 1968-7-17 certain; 1969-5-12 refuted; 1969-10-15 refuted; 1971-3-15 refuted; 1972-??-?? refuted; 1968-7-17 certain (preferred). Superseded here: delta 0: 1972-00-00 at `certain` (run `corpus v1 / phase3b`).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.
Sources
Source
- The Pattern Man ¶90 (because in my own case twelve years ago in this city I, too, could have said, “untimely born,” for here I)