standard-of-proof

Standard-of-proof sets the evidentiary threshold for what counts as sufficient — it operates directly on evidence as its substrate. Remove evidence and the standard has nothing to measure against, no threshold to apply. This is the same constitutive relationship as burden-of-proof→evidence: evidence is the raw material that the standard-of-proof processes.

A standard of proof IS a specific kind of principle — the rule specifying the required level of evidence (beyond reasonable doubt, preponderance, clear and convincing). Direction: specific→general. Note pins principle as a governing rule, not a vague norm.

Removal test: remove legal procedure and standard of proof ceases to operate — it specifies the evidence threshold within an active procedure. Without procedure, the concept has no working context. Law 8 passes.

Nearest kind: standard-of-proof is the class of normative thresholds fixing the degree of evidence required to settle a proposition within a domain, and beyond-reasonable-doubt is one such threshold, pinned to the criminal-law domain, where it is the strongest rung in the hierarchy (clear-and-convincing, preponderance below it; proof in the logical sense is a different construct entirely). burden-of-proof is a sibling rule (who must carry the standard), not the kind BRD instantiates. Filing from the specific to its general: BRD is an instance of the class, not the reverse. The entry is still provisional (3 ADVANCE votes, mine included); the edge takes its fate with it, which is correct - if the court strikes the entry, this edge should die with it.