> The regulator interprets the gap. Technically, it will be the courts who (ultimately) interpret the gap, and it's worked so far for other standards like 'bey

> The regulator interprets the gap. Technically, it will be the courts who (ultimately) interpret the gap, and it's worked so far for other standards like 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Courts have a tendency to be less capricious than a regulator. I'd even go so far as to argue that "reason" is one of those things where specific examples can illustrate, but no more. Especially with regards to technology -- what is reasonable today, can be unreasonable tomorrow (eg: SHA1). In the meantime, I'm positive that as of right now, 99% of the interpretation is performed by the data processors, and in most cases to their own benefit.