The Old Mixer wrote:
To be fair, they were trying not to speculate too much beyond what was stated onscreen, so if somebody said 200 years onscreen, that's where they put it. The Okudas would be the first ones to consider it a placeholder date to be contradicted onscreen at the whim of the episode writers.
But the problem is that the way they handled the dates was misleading if that was their intent. Assigning an exact date gave readers the impression that that was meant to be the
date -- not to mention that we Pocket novelists were required to use the Okudachron dates even when they didn't make sense, unless they'd been overtly contradicted by later screen canon.
Instead of putting the Valiant
launch in 2065, for example, maybe they should've just put it in a "Late 21st Century" section without being specific about the year. It would've been hard to fit it into the chronology format, true, but it would've been more truthful.
It just goes to illustrate the difference between precision and accuracy. Accuracy is how correct an answer is; precision is how narrowly it's pinned down. If you assert a degree of precision beyond the actual data, such as pinning down a specific year when all you have is an approximate range, that's actually a less accurate answer, because it doesn't correctly represent the margin of error.
Putting TWOK and TSFS a year earlier wasn't much of a stretch, as the three films spanned over three months and there might have been a New Year in there.
Except that in the 2233 entry, they said Kirk's birthday was March 22, the same as Shatner's. Which would put TWOK in late March, so there's no way TVH could've been the following year.