Neville describes a vision in which he came upon a scene he felt belonged to roughly two hundred years earlier, in the New England states, apparently a Sunday afternoon: a family of four dining together, the father, mother, and two sons in their early twenties. Watching them, he felt within himself that he could exert a form of dominion over their actions -- he offers the experience as a taste of the complete control ('dominion') that awaits every person once fully permeated with love.
Date (happened)
between 1941 and 1950
unresolved
between 1941 and 1950
estimated · doubtful · preferred
Why
The scene described within the vision (New England, ~150 years earlier) is visionary content, not a real-world date, and is not used here.
Reasoning
The witness note explicitly flags this as 'when Neville first experienced arresting the action' i.e. the happening date, not the telling. He places it 'about twenty-odd years' before the telling; with the telling bounded to 15-20 July 1970 (see told claim), simple arithmetic (told minus 20 to minus 29 years, a vague rhetorical span) bounds the happening to circa 1941-1950. Confidence is set below the told claim's ceiling because 'twenty-odd' is imprecise on top of the already-uncertain telling date.
c. 1758
estimated · possible
Why
This is Neville's stated impression of a vision's setting, not a dateable personal event; the underlying telling date itself is in genuine dispute (see told reasoning).
Reasoning
Neville describes the vision's setting, not a real event in his own life, as feeling about two hundred years before the telling. Against the (doubtful) 1958-01-27 telling this gives circa 1758, matching the event's existing title; this is inherently a vague, stated impression of an era, not a literal calculation, and would shift if the disputed telling date is later revised.
before 1965
bound · possible
Reasoning
Qualifying passage ids [543363] belong to telling lecture nids [1759]. Each listed lecture contributes the selected safe envelope year 1965 (MAX of its non-refuted delivery years); 1965 is the MIN across telling lectures.
before 1966
bound · possible
Why
Corrects the phase4 L6a envelope on this event from before 1965 to before 1966.
Reasoning
Envelope recompute, arithmetic only. The phase4 L6a row on this event states its own rule: each telling lecture contributes MAX of its non-refuted delivery years, and the envelope is the MIN across telling lectures. Recomputed live over lecture nid(s) 1759 that row cites, MAX(non-refuted field_delivery_year) gives 1966, not the 1965 the row carries — the bound was below its own stated rule and therefore UNSAFE: it asserted the event did not happen in 1 year(s) where it may sit. Same premise, same evidence, no re-reading and no re-judgement; only the maximum was taken correctly. The L6a row stands beside this one (append-only). Ruling: #2235 delta 1, architect 378.
Told / reported
between 15 July 1970 and 20 July 1970
estimated · possible
Why
Exact session boundary for this passage is not visible in the packet window; range covers the sessions preceding the 22 July header.
Reasoning
Processing notes list the node's seven sessions in document order across 15(x2)/16/17/20/22/23/25 July 1970. This passage sits before the header introducing the 22 July session, so its own session is one of those earlier in the list (15-20 July); the inherited 1970-06-05 delivery claim is doubtful and is noted as agreeing with none of the real session dates, so it is not used.
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 1041 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 1041 surviving (non-refuted) claim: 1971-??-?? at `probable`. All claims on the node: 1958-1-27 refuted; 1971-??-?? probable (preferred). Superseded here: delta 0: 1958-01-27 at `doubtful` (run `v1.1/l4/w3/C5`). 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.
6 December 1966
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 1759 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 1759 surviving (non-refuted) claim: 1966-12-6 at `certain`. All claims on the node: 1965-2-2 refuted; 1966-11-30 refuted; 1966-12-1 refuted; 1966-12-6 certain (preferred). Superseded here: delta 0: 1965-02-02 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.
27 January 1958
estimated · refuted
Why
Genuine, serious internal contradiction (roughly a 13-year gap) between this lecture's sole delivery claim and its own content; flagged for lane L1.
Reasoning
Only one formal delivery claim exists (N=1, nominally certain), but the lecture's own processing notes record two internal contradictions: a reference to 'our boys in Vietnam' coming back as basket cases, and Neville dating his own awakening to 'twelve years ago' when his awakening is otherwise placed corpus-wide in 1959 (implying a telling closer to 1971). I have no mandate to add a competing delivery claim to the lecture itself, so I retain the sole existing claim but downgrade the inherited confidence from certain to doubtful given the substantial, specific internal contradiction, and flag the lecture for dedicated review. || v1.1/l7/told-close: the delivery claim this was derived from (nid 1041, 1958-1-27) was refuted by the L7 adjudication (#2363). The corrected told claim from the same lecture stands at 1971-?-?. This row is retired rather than deleted so the derivation history remains readable.
2 February 1965
stated · refuted
Reasoning
|| v1.1/l7/told-close: the delivery claim this was derived from (nid 1759, 1965-2-2) was refuted by the L7 adjudication (#2363). The corrected told claim from the same lecture stands at 1966-12-6. This row is retired rather than deleted so the derivation history remains readable.
Sources
Source
- The Word ¶7 (I came upon a scene, just like this, objective to me and seemingly independent of my perception of what I was perceiving; and then I knew innately that it wasn’t, that if I could arrest what I was feeling in me, not in things I saw, they all would stand …)
- I Am the Truth ¶5 (And I stopped that activity within me, which was life, which made them appear to be alive. And they all froze. They were all dead.)
- The Secret of Imagining ¶70
- Who Is the Son of Man ¶2