[blml] "Demonstrably" - practical meaning?

[Guthrie]

[paul lamford]
However, the very fact that there is so much argument and 
counter-argument on here about whether pass or 3C is suggested by the UI 
makes it clear to me that neither is *demonstrably* suggested which is 
the requirement for the player not to select one over the other.

[SNIP]
...The bid that is not suggested at all by the UI is 3C, but, as  I have 
said before, neither is *demonstrably* suggested.

And anyone who thinks it is should ask why the hand generated so much
discussion if it was *demonstrably* suggested.

[nige1]
What is the *practical* *Bridge* meaning of "demonstrably" suggested? 
For example ...

Suppose that the director consults a group of the alleged offender's 
peers, *without* telling them what was the actual result. 80% of this 
sample agree that there are two equally plausible logical alternatives 
and 60% agree that the successful alternative (which was the one 
actually chosen) is suggested by unauthorised information?

How should the director rule?

Paul seems to believe that dissent over what is "demonstrably suggested" 
means that the director should rule "no infraction".

I feel that a majority verdict should be sufficient. IMO, the law-book 
should state that clearly. Surely other interpretations would render the 
law ineffective? Can you remember any UI case, discussed in any online 
forum, where the verdict was unanimous?

But what is the current law? I fear that once again the verdict depends 
on the untrammelled "judgement" ( = whim ) of directors and committees. 
The only advantage of such a legal philosophy is that it may provide a 
hint as to who your friends are :)