 Scholars and commentators have also voiced more specific objections that need not invalidate the probabilistic framework but rather call for refinements. Nance (2016) argues that the evidence on which to base a trial decision should be reasonably complete—it should be all the evidence that one would reasonably expect to see from a conscientious investigation of the facts. A similar argument can be found in Davidson and Pargetter (1987). Arguably, probability-based decision thresholds can accommodate these considerations, for example, by lowering the probability of civil or criminal liability whenever the body of evidence is one-sided or incomplete (Friedman 1996; Kaye 1979c, 1986). Another strategy is to give a probability-based account of the notion of completeness of the evidence and other seemingly non-probabilistic criteria (Urbaniak 2018).