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?