Ah. Well, we can speak of absolute evidence (i.e., evidence relative to no background assumptions), but we can also speak of evidence relative to some background assumptions, right (the same way you considered justification relative to certain background assumptions)? And since the assumptions being considered are ones generally left implicit, I think the natural convention would be to take discussion of evidence to implicitly be relative to those assumptions unless otherwise specified. Is that the only thing causing us to talk at cross-purposes?