Re the addendum, would [hard-science] better convey what you're after?
The rationale behind the question that started that discussion was that almost all answers are expected to be based in science and logic.
Well, the tag was started, I asked a question to test it out. Serban Tanasa's answer earned a bounty I placed, but I didn't accept it, because it wasn't as in-depth as I wanted. I also posted an answer to demonstrate just how I thought answer using the tag should be.
I hope nobody takes this the wrong way, but I don't think that the answers have turned out to be quite as good as I had hoped. Looking at the tag wiki excerpt,
All answers to this question should be backed up by equations, empirical evidence, scientific papers, other citations, etc.
To this day, I have yet to see more than a few answers - and this takes into account that some of my answers aren't up to snuff here - that actually fit these criteria.
In short, I see the hard-science tag going the way of science-based, which is not good. I tried to bring this up in Defining the boundaries of the "hard-science" tag, but the issue has not gone away. I see questions migrated away to other sites, like Physics and Engineering. That's good, but I think we should strive to have questions demanding tough answers on-topic and welcome here.
Perhaps I'm just getting a bit touchy about the issue because of the types of topics I'm used to writing about on Stack Exchange. But I think that this is a necessary issue. After this, I'm not going to push the point. I promise.
Can we please, please bring back hard-science to the way we envisioned it, and make sure that the original ideas - like what an asker should want in order to use the tag - are enforced? If things keep sliding, the concept, I think, will be dead.