Okay, so you don't like this tool, and think that the metaphorical toolbox should only contain flathead screwdrivers, not Phillips-head ones...

I clearly don't mind experimental cmavo that are well thought out and address a demonstrable need in the language.

I'm not trying to force anyone to use this if they don't want to.

False: you're forcing all of your readers to use this when they read the things you write. For this to be worthwhile, that inconvenience should be balanced out by the convenience of using bei'e.

But I'm not quite sure what it is you're suggesting I /do/.

I want you to think longer before suggesting modifications to the language.

However, practically, the purpose of the number is to describe the user's belief-level in that sumti, which is very close to how evidentials are used; and so, in a non-technical sense, I describe it as being placed 'like' an evidential. So it's not a UI - it's just used in pretty much the same way that UIs are.

Saying bei'e is selma'o MAI already exhausts the potential places that it can appear in a sentence. I suspect you originally wanted bei'e to be UI and haven't fully updated to it being MAI. More evidence that you need to think about this longer.