 There exist several theoretical alternatives to the probabilistic interpretation of proof standards in the scholarly literature. Pennington and Hastie (1991, 1993) have proposed the story model according to which judges and jurors first make sense of the evidence by constructing stories of what happened, and then select the best story on the basis of multiple criteria, such as coherence, fit with the evidence and completeness.  Pardo and Allen (2008) argue that the version of the facts that best explains the evidence should prevail in a court of law. On the role of coherence and story construction in evidence assessment and decision-making at trial, see (Amaya 2015; Griffin 2013; Simon 2004).  