I think he meant to say "correlative," implying a correlation, though I'm not sure if "correlative" is actually a word. Instead, I would have suggested the use of the word "correlational" as opposed to "correlative." Yet, I would also be remiss if I didn't point out that the phrase "correlational facts" is somewhat oxymoronic, since, from a technical standpoint, a correlation does not imply causation, and, thus, cannot be a "fact," but merely some degree of relation.
Sorry for the intrusion. And, on behalf of Howard, if "correlative" is not actually a word, then he apologies for the neologism. Or, maybe he'll just tell all of you to fuck off.