Neville says he began teaching the Law on 2 February 1933, his wife's birthday, because he had tried it himself, found that assuming a state and remaining faithful to it crystallized into fact, and was so excited that it worked that he began to teach it.
Date (happened)
2 February 1933
unresolved
2 February 1933
stated · preferred
Told / reported
after 20 July 1971
estimated · probable
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 1030 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 1030 surviving (non-refuted) claim: 1971-7-20 at `probable`. All claims on the node: 1957-??-?? refuted; 1971-7-20 probable (preferred). Superseded here: delta 0: 1957-00-00 at `certain` (run `corpus v1 / phase3b`) | delta 1: 1957-00-00 at `probable` (run `v1.1/l4/ceiling/c2`).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.
1957
stated · refuted
Reasoning
|| v1.1/l7/told-close: the delivery claim this was derived from (nid 1030, 1957--) was refuted by the L7 adjudication (#2363). The corrected told claim from the same lecture stands at 1971-7-20. This row is retired rather than deleted so the derivation history remains readable.
1957
stated · refuted
Why
Corrects the confidence of the told claim written by run `corpus v1 / phase3b` at delta 0 on this event; that claim is left standing per append-only. Ceiling rule #2132.
Reasoning
Confidence only; the date is not re-adjudicated and is left exactly as written. This claim is derived from the delivery claims of node 1030 and asserts `certain`, but the strongest claim that node carries is `probable`, so there is nothing for `certain` to inherit from. nid 1030 delivery claims: 1957-??-?? doubtful; 1971-7-20 probable. Walked back to `probable`, the ceiling. Whether the DATE is right is a separate question this row does not touch; if the evidence turns out to support more confidence, it will have to come from a source other than this node. || v1.1/l7/told-close: the delivery claim this was derived from (nid 1030, 1957--) was refuted by the L7 adjudication (#2363). The corrected told claim from the same lecture stands at 1971-7-20. This row is retired rather than deleted so the derivation history remains readable.
Sources
Source
- The Promise Fulfilled ¶35 (Well, I taught the Law from the 2nd day of February . . my wife’s birthday, 1933. I taught it because I had experienced it. I tried it and it worked.)