Extending the previous section into the realm of verifiable things, we can find other metrics of complication.  Here, I will talk about the range of conviction.  Not a physical range of distance.  A measure of how readily one's belief in something can be re-affirmed, and at what depth it can be re-affirmed.  Because, much like a person might check a dictionary when they're unsure about a term's definition, a person might have some strategy/source by which they can check each of their beliefs.
	Example:  the logic trick of "every apple in my hand is red".  The point of the quote is just a lesson in the rules of logic, but the cornerstone of it involves direct verification.  It's meant to be said in person, while showing that there is nothing at all in your hands.  While the layman gets caught up in assumptions to create confusion over how the statement can't be true when there are no apples at all, the person familiar with logic recognizes it as a true statement so long as there is no verifiable contradiction.  That is, the logic student will immediately check for non-red apples held in the person's hands.
	Briefly, I should explicitly say that the layman's confused view is not a factor here, as can be extrapolated from the previous section.  Because they imagined a different claim than was made, they can no more contradict the logic student than two people imagining different trees could contradict each other in the previous section.  It isn't a worthless view, but it isn't important for this section.
	When the claimant is only a few meters away, this is trivial to verify with the naked eye.  What if they are 100 meters away?  The naked eye won't be a reliable method of verification.  A tool could be used, like binoculars.  What if they are 100 kilometers away?  You can't reliably view it with your eyes then, without some extravagant setup.  Perhaps you could use satellite imaging, if you trust there to be highly accurate color portrayal.  You could even have a third party verify in person and send you a message to verify.  Isn't this weaker, though?  Not simply because of great physical distance, but because the verification strategy had to change to something with at least a slightly larger margin of error.  Now, what if they were in an undisclosed location?  You can't verify at all, unless you make character judgements about them to assume their claim is true or false.
	The range of conviction is pretty much the same - it's the measure of how reliable any method of verification is.  

	I should go ahead and mention "CE field", as a term I've made up.  It stands for Chimerical Equity field, which by definition, chimerical equity just means 'things have a weird way of working out' (or even 'the lord works in mysterious ways').  Applying the concept to a "field" only really makes sense as I explore some of the specific factors here - this is all just a long explanation of what I summarize as chimerical equity.  Now, while I mentioned earlier that the range of conviction shouldn't be imagined as a literal physical range of distance, you can imagine it being close enough, as proximity can just be another method of verifiability.  This is to say that the range of conviction acts as the soft boundaries of every CE field.