The second section of my response (the part not in quotation marks) are my own words, not from the book.
“Well wined-up” would mean he was drunk. The semantics of hit vs beat when discussing domestic abuse seems a bit nitpicky, but whatever. And while I can accept that supposition is not allowed, there’s a difference between me saying he hit her just because I think it seems likely with nothing from the books to back it up (which would be supposition) and me basing it off actual evidence in the book even if it’s never directly stated. Implications in the book are still facts because the author is the one who made those implications, it just needs to be noted that it was not directly stated. Relationships between green riders and brown/blue riders are entirely implied in the 9th Pass and not actively discussed, that doesn’t mean that’s not what they were. If you want to change it to “it is implied he may have hit her” then that’s fine, but I didn’t make anything up.