Still other versions of EC takes the shifting standards to directly govern ascriptions of evidence. For Robert Hambourger, it is “the amount of evidence needed to know a proposition” which “varies with standards of caution” (1987, 260, emphasis added). For Ram Neta, it is not the quantity of evidence required for a truthful utterance of ‘S knows that p’ that is governed by context-sensitive standards, but rather whether certain mental states of the subject’s count as evidence at all. The relevant rule once again bears similarities to those proposed by Cohen and Lewis: