Could redefining Reality-Check and the assumed proof standard be useful?

Question

Having asked and read through a number of questions and the replies to them, including but not limited to Does [hard-science] imply [science-based] imply [reality-check]?, Do we need the reality-check tag?, and Where does Reality-Check actually fit in the burden of proof framework?, I'm wondering if Reality-Check could in fact be re-defined as Proof-of-Concept, that being what it tends to entail, such questions usually being in the form of; "given these things that I've changed - does this thing work, or - how does this thing work?".

Having done that, since everyone seems to be saying that Science-Based is actually an assumed default standard for answers, to spite the optional nature of the tag, can that tag then be removed entirely and make Science-Based an explicit base standard for answers unless the OP specifies a softer or harder standard using either the Proof-of-Concept or the Hard-Science tag respectively?

Answer 1

I don't think that changing the meaning of a meta tag is the right thing to do while we're discussing the removal of the tag.

We're trying to get away from using meta tags anyway. Meta tags modify the question in hidden ways that aren't obvious to new users. It would be better to not have hidden modifiers to trip them up.

When asking a question the asker can always ask "Does this make sense?" or "Is there an obvious flaw in my premise that I'm missing?" This was the case before we had the reality-check tag and will still be the case if the current effort to remove it is successful.