Tuesday's term was preponderance of the evidence standard, which is defined as:
n. the greater weight of the evidence required in a civil (non-criminal) lawsuit for the trier of fact (jury or judge without a jury) to decide in favor of one side or the other. This preponderance is based on the more convincing evidence and its probable truth or accuracy, and not on the amount of evidence. Thus, one clearly knowledgeable witness may provide a preponderance of evidence over a dozen witnesses with hazy testimony, or a signed agreement with definite terms may outweigh opinions or speculation about what the parties intended. Preponderance of the evidence is required in a civil case and is contrasted with "beyond a reasonable doubt," which is the more severe test of evidence required to convict in a criminal trial. No matter what the definition stated in various legal opinions, the meaning is somewhat subjective. See also: evidence.
Slickdpdx and Carlos both guessed, and I'm accepting both guesses as correct.
In keeping with the current evidentiary standard of proof theme, today's term is:
beyond a reasonable doubt.
Creative examples of this standard of proof will garner bonus points.
Good luck and no dictionaries, please.