What is required to qualify something as evidence in court?

Proven relevance and truth is essential for qualifying something as evidence in court because it ensures that the information presented is both pertinent to the case at hand and accurate. Evidence must be relevant, meaning it directly relates to the issues in the trial, and it must be true, as false information can lead to unjust outcomes. This principle upholds the integrity of the judicial process by ensuring that decisions are based on factual and applicable material rather than conjecture or unverifiable claims.

Clear documentation, coherent argument, and subjective interpretation, while they may play roles in the presentation of evidence or arguments, do not inherently qualify information as evidence. Clear documentation can support the credibility of evidence but doesn't on its own determine its admissibility. Coherent argument is necessary during legal discussions but is separate from the criteria for what constitutes evidence. Lastly, subjective interpretation might affect how evidence is perceived but does not meet the objective standards required for validating evidence in a court of law.