Neville tells how, in love with the woman who became his wife while still undivorced from his first wife and expected to marry his dancing partner, he assumed for six nights that he was blissfully happy in the new marriage - and his dancing partner then confessed she loved a doctor friend of his and thought of Neville only as a brother.
Date (happened)
1936
estimated · preferred
Reasoning
Neville explicitly states 1936 for this sequence but supplies no month or day for the week of imaginal practice.
before 1969
bound · possible
Reasoning
Qualifying passage ids [545858] belong to telling lecture nids [1828]. Each listed lecture contributes the selected safe envelope year 1969 (MAX of its non-refuted delivery years); 1969 is the MIN across telling lectures.
before 24 November 1969
bound
Why
Tightens the phase4 L6a envelope from before 1969 to before 1969-11-24.
Reasoning
L6a envelope tightened to the telling day of nid 1828 (certain delivery 1969-11-24); same premise, finer precision. The phase4 L6a bound on this event is `before 1969`, an envelope over delivery YEARS computed without reading text. Its premise is that the fact is true by the time it is told; on that same premise the DAY of the telling is a strictly better upper bound. Nothing is re-decided — the bound is stated to the precision the evidence always supported. The delivery claim for 1969-11-24 on nid 1828 is held at `certain` by the corpus, which is what carries this claim. #2274; the L6a row stands beside this one.
before 20 March 1964
bound · probable
Why
Corrects the L4.5-tightened bound (d1), which cited the now-refuted 1969-11-24 delivery claim on the same node; the old row is left in place per append-only.
Reasoning
The event's existing field_date bound (before 1969-11-24, certain) was derived from a delivery claim on node 1828 that the corpus's own L7 adjudication (#2363) has since refuted as a catalogue_block_error; that refutation was applied to this event's field_told claims (npr 75791/76464) but was never propagated to its field_date bound, leaving a certain claim resting on a discarded date -- exactly the ceiling breach this lane exists to catch. The surviving delivery claim for nid 1828 is 1964-03-20 at probable (a WordPress-post chrome dateline). Deriving from it, the happening this event describes (Neville's courtship story, told from the platform) is bound before 1964-03-20, and the derived bound cannot exceed the probable confidence of the claim it rests on.
between 1936 and July 1938
estimated · possible
Why
M7 dating pass (529; 525's readers, packet 007)
Reasoning
Divorce came 1938-07-25 (17340), so 'not yet divorced' puts it before then; chronology 8579 dates a very similar week of assuming marriage to his future wife to 1936. Chronology 810 (meets Catherine 1940) does not fit and is set aside.
Told / reported
5 April 1971
estimated
Reasoning
Lecture nid 1972 is independently dated 1971-04-05 by matching catalogue and transcript byline.
20 March 1964
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 1828 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 1828 surviving (non-refuted) claim: 1964-3-20 at `probable`. All claims on the node: 1969-11-24 refuted; 1964-3-20 probable (preferred). Superseded here: delta 0: 1969-11-24 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.
24 November 1969
stated · refuted
Reasoning
|| v1.1/l7/told-close: the delivery claim this was derived from (nid 1828, 1969-11-24) was refuted by the L7 adjudication (#2363). The corrected told claim from the same lecture stands at 1964-3-20. This row is retired rather than deleted so the derivation history remains readable.
Sources
Source
- Proof the Law Works ¶26 (one solid week)
- God Only Acts and Is ¶5 (One night I said to myself, “If I am now blissfully happy in this new relationship of marriage, then it could not be really a happy state if I knew that my dancing partner was injured in any way by this act of mine. So I will simply forget all of that an…)