Has anyone read any good analysis about Title I of HR4174 requiring evidence when making public policy? Skimming the bill, I don't have a clue what the implicat

Has anyone read any good analysis about Title I of HR4174 requiring evidence when making public policy? Skimming the bill, I don't have a clue what the implications are other than requiring agencies to make some reports. It sounds like a good thing on the surface, but it has been a talking point of the Trump administration, and put into practice in a rather Orwellian fashion. Basically, the implied subtext is that regulators should not put any restrictions on industry unless the evidence is completely unambiguously in favor of the regulation. However, science is never 100% certain even at its best. And you can always drag up some study that contradicts the strong consensus of the field, whether by fluke or intentional design of the study. In other words "evidence based policymaking" has been euphemism for "must give alternative facts equal weight".