Neville announces that next Sunday morning he will take Dr. Frederick Bailes' 10:30 service at the Fox Wilshire Theater and speak there on 'Imaginative Love'.
Date (happened)
c. July 1951
conclusion · preferred
Reasoning
Two independent certain tellings (node 995; node 2095 once its stray 1958-02-17 claim is refuted) agree on July 1951.
c. July 1951
estimated
Why
M7 dating pass (529; 525's readers, packet 035)
Reasoning
Two independent certain tellings (node 995; node 2095 once its stray 1958-02-17 claim is refuted) agree on July 1951.
Told / reported
July 1951
conclusion
Why
dc1-agreement-20261004, pm-actor-551 (PM 8702)
Reasoning
All 3 claims agree on 1951-07: node:995; node:2095; 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 Superseded here: delta 0: 1958-02-17 at `certain` (run `corpus v1 / phase3b`).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.
c. July 1951
estimated · probable
Why
Conflicts with the existing certain 1958-02-17 told claim on this event (source node:2095, catalog #81, WHY: copied without semantic change from historical event 79, state=legacy_unreviewed). That claim appears to be a catalogue mislink and should not be treated as settled; a human should reconcile events 9 and 79's lecture linkages.
Reasoning
The event's only forward witness is passage 552990 inside lecture 2095. That lecture carries two contradictory delivery lineages: five independent-of-each-other threads (a live in-text dateline in the lecture itself, an independently harvested chrome-metadata duplicate, and three catalog/index entries tracing to historical event 9) agree on July 1951, while the sole basis for the existing certain 1958-02-17 told claim on this event is catalog #81, backfilled unreviewed from a different historical event (79) with no internal corroboration in lecture 2095. The brief's evidence hierarchy ranks the lecture's own text above a catalogue note, so July 1951 is the better-supported telling date. Day is not evidenced anywhere so this stays month-level (qualifier circa). Confidence is capped at probable, the ceiling set by the strongest non-catalogue delivery evidence (the chrome-dateline duplicate); the live in-text dateline alone was rated only possible by the worker who logged it, but taken together with the independent chrome duplicate the convergent picture supports probable rather than possible.
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
- Truth ¶8 (At that time, I am to have the pleasure and the privilege of taking Dr. Frederick Bailes’ service at the Fox Wilshire Theater on Wilshire Boulevard near La Cienega.)
- Answered Prayer ¶14 (Prayer is an act of Imaginative Love which is to be the subject of my message next Sunday morning at 10:30 at the Fox Wilshire Theater on Wilshire Boulevard near La Cienega.)
- Tloa Lecturetruth ¶5