That is the definition of clear and convincing evidence, but the burden of proof in civil litigation is the preponderance of the evidence
Are there different thresholds depending on the count? Again, apologies, from CNN:
“To prove her defamation claim, the jury had to find that Carroll’s legal team proved by the preponderance of the evidence that Trump knew it was false when he published the statement about Carroll last year and knowingly exposed her to public ridicule. They also had to determine that she proved by clear and convincing evidence that the statement was false, and that Trump made the statement with actual malice.”
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/09/politics/carroll-trump-jury-deliberations/index.html
Does that make any sense, or is it slippery journo speech? This doesn’t make sense to me.