I'll throw the hand grenade into the room...

I would urge everyone to see the memo below
[www.justice.gov]

The U.S. Department of Justice has mandated that the phrase "reasonable degree of scientific certainty" and it's variations will NOT be used in reports or testimony by federal investigators. Here are some excerpts from that memo:

"Forensic discipline conclusions are often testified to as being held “to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty” or “to a reasonable degree of [discipline] certainty.” These terms have no scientific meaning and may mislead factfinders about the level of objectivity involved in the analysis, its scientific reliability and limitations, and the ability of the analysis to reach a conclusion."

"Neither the Daubert nor Frye test of scientific admissibility requires its use, and consideration of caselaw from around the country confirms that use of the phrase is not required by law and is primarily a relic of custom and practice. There are additional problems with this phrase, including:

• There is no common definition within science disciplines as to what threshold
establishes “reasonable” certainty. Therefore, whether couched as “scientific certainty” or “[discipline] certainty,” the term is idiosyncratic to the witness."

If there's no definition of reasonable degree of certainty, how can that phrase be used reliably? If we stick with more probable than not, we are left with up to a 49 point swing since anywhere between 51 and 100 percent is more probable than not.

Uniquely consistent with the evidence makes sense to me.

I think the issues mentioned previously with respect to 921 leaving text related to classification or levels of certainty after the Classification chapter was removed were merely oversights. Having been involved with task groups recently, I have seen how easy it is to get focused on one section and miss references in other areas of the book.