Neville recounts that he was 'called' in 1929, and for the following thirty years he taught only the Law -- the technique of imagining a desire fulfilled -- without yet knowing the 'Promise' held within scripture, until it erupted within him thirty years later, in 1959. From that moment, he says, he could do nothing else but think, talk, and share his experience of it, understanding this to be exactly what he had been sent to do. When he shared these experiences with his own family they rejected them entirely, he says, though his father came closest to understanding, once telling a minister who could not answer Neville's questions, 'Son, you must be an apostle.'
Date (happened)
between 1929 and 1959
unresolved
between 1929 and 1959
stated · probable · preferred
Why
Corroborated by a second, later telling of the same thirty-year span (passage 538348, lecture nid 1366, 'The Remnant': 'thirty years' before his 1959 experience) with no new specifics.
Reasoning
Neville directly states both the starting year (1929, the well-attested Divine Assembly vision described elsewhere in this corpus) and the thirty-year span, giving 1959 (the equally well-attested Promise awakening) as the end point. A second telling of the same thirty-year span (passage 538348, nid 1366) corroborates without adding a new starting year.
Told / reported
between 5 March 1965 and 28 February 1969
estimated · doubtful
Why
Flag for another lane: lecture 1196's catalog-vs-chrome conflict (1965-03-05 vs 1969-02-28) still needs adjudication.
Reasoning
The lecture's own dating trail leaves this conflict explicitly unresolved, so the told claim is written as a between range spanning both at possible confidence rather than silently picking one. || v1.1/l7/told-lower: lowered `possible` -> `doubtful`. The telling-date 1965-03-05 is refuted on the source lecture (nid 1196) and no live claim on that node supports it, so the corpus can no longer say WHEN this was told. ⛔ The row is KEPT, not retired: it also records THAT nid 1196 tells this event, which is true and checkable from the passages, and retiring it would discard that with the date.
10 June 1968
estimated
Reasoning
Two independent certain sources agree exactly, and no competing claim exists.
28 February 1969
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 1196 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 1196 surviving (non-refuted) claim: 1969-2-28 at `probable`. All claims on the node: 1965-3-5 refuted; 1969-2-28 probable (preferred). Superseded here: delta 0: 1965-03-05 at `possible` (run `v1.1/l4/w1/B2`). 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.