Once you have redefined "absolutely zero evidence" to mean "too small for it to be worthwhile for humans to consider it" precisely what language can you use to describe things that, you know, aren't evidence?

True. The balancing concern is that, in the case of "too small to be worthwhile", we want people to not consider it, and there are strong biases that make people consider it a la but there's still a chance! If anything less than "absolutely zero evidence" lets people consider evidence - and overestimating the evidence is worse than underestimating it - then it is preferred language. In that case, it would share the same language as things that aren't evidence at all.