I think the author is too nit-picky here, as the phrase "no evidence" has a superficially similar, but nuanced meaning based on the context - _and this is fine_

I think the author is too nit-picky here, as the phrase "no evidence" has a superficially similar, but nuanced meaning based on the context - _and this is fine_. It can't be the burden of whoever writes something to cover all possible edge cases of understanding, depending on the medium you need to be able to rely on certain _a priori_ knowledge. We have a lot of similar shorthands in journalism, the one that comes to my mind immediately is the phrase "the markets reacted", even though there is no living, conscious thing which is "the market" and can have a reaction. Similar to "no evidence", this phrase has a meaning which varies in detail but which is superficially the same and it's up to the reader to understand it.