Neville refers to his wife and his little girl as his closest companions, using them to illustrate that only of himself can he say "I am".
Date (happened)
before 23 February 1948
unresolved
before 23 February 1948
bound · possible
Why
M7 dating pass (529; 525's readers, packet 035)
Reasoning
Corrects the stale envelope per the F0476 fix on sibling event 19862: lecture 989 is certainly delivered 1948-02-23, not the refuted 1964-02-03.
before 1964
bound · refuted
Why
pm-actor-525: refuted by the M7 dating pass (529; 525's readers, packet 035): Computed from lecture 989's refuted 1964-02-03 delivery date; the lecture is certainly dated 1948-02-23.
Reasoning
Qualifying passage ids [527364] belong to telling lecture nids [989]. Each listed lecture contributes the selected safe envelope year 1964 (MAX of its non-refuted delivery years); 1964 is the MIN across telling lectures.
Told / reported
23 February 1948
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 989 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 989 surviving (non-refuted) claim: 1948-2-23 at `certain`. All claims on the node: 1948-2-23 certain; 1964-2-3 refuted; 1948-??-?? certain (preferred). Superseded here: delta 0: 1964-02-03 at `certain` (run `corpus v1 / phase3b`).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.
3 February 1964
stated · refuted
Reasoning
|| v1.1/l7/told-close: the delivery claim this was derived from (nid 989, 1964-2-3) was refuted by the L7 adjudication (#2363). The corrected told claim from the same lecture stands at 1948-2-23. This row is retired rather than deleted so the derivation history remains readable.