That's not what you said in #815. There you said:
And yes, drawing conlcusions from *facts* is metaphysical because it involved 'abstract thought'. The only way you can avoid this is to observe 'concrete evidence' (a fact).
Under this criteria ANY time you go beyond sheer fact, it's metaphysical, even if you do so in order to provide a theoretical explanation for a phenomena that is observable and repeatable in the present. For instance the theory of photosynthesis would be "metaphysical". EVERY scientific theory would be, since they ALL involve "abstract thought" and ALL "[draw] conclusions from" (or, more correctly, are logically related to so as to be testable in terms of...) facts.
So which is it? Your two criteria for determining that something is "metaphysical"
are incommensurable. As noted above #2 includes explanations of present observable phenomena, as well as explanations of past and unobservable phenomena. Even beyond that it includes far, far too much as "metaphysical". That is it includes EVERYTHING in science, excepting only sheer facts, with no inferences from or implications thereto allowed.
#1 isn't quite as bad, but it still includes things as metaphysical that clearly aren't. E.g. criminal forensics. It also includes many, many other difficulties, for instance, as previously noted, accounting for the status of the many scientific laws (e.g. Newton's laws of motion) that, in principle, do not themselves distinguish between past and future.
It is what I said since in the line just above that you cut out I said: "Unless there is a witness who can testify, the event is past and unobservable."
Does your attention span extend beyond the next line in a post?