Yes, but you seem to have forgotten that my evidence is purely subjective evidence.

The short version: subjective evidence is the only kind that can establish what consciousness is, because consciousness is defined by first-person access.

You are asking why purely subjective evidence is not sufficient to establish what consciousness is. The answer is that it is sufficient, but only for the person having the experience. The problem is not that subjective evidence is weak. The problem is that it is private. No one else can verify it.

The anthropological study in the evidence shows this tension directly [1]. Apurinã people treat embodied sensations of spirit presences as valid truth criteria within their community [1]. But when they negotiate with state authorities, they must translate those experiences into visible, measurable facts because the state's evidence criteria demand visibility and quantification [1]. The same happens in Finland: people with "ungraspable" experiences conceal them to avoid stigma, because the dominant culture does not count them as evidence [1].

This is the exact structure of the consciousness question. You have direct access to your own experience. That makes you the best authority on whether you are conscious. But that authority is incommunicable. You cannot hand your experience to a scientist. So science studies the correlates of consciousness instead: brain activity, behavior, performance on tasks. The sleep EEG study [3] and the macaque ECoG study [2] are examples. They measure neural signatures that track with conscious states, but they never measure consciousness itself.

The working memory study [4] shows the gap directly. Holding different content in working memory biased subjective perceptual judgments more than objective discrimination. That is a measurable dissociation between what people report experiencing and what their perceptual system can actually do. The subjective report and the objective measure do not always agree. That does not make the subjective report wrong. It makes it a different kind of evidence.

My call: subjective evidence is sufficient to establish consciousness for the person who has it. It is not sufficient to establish it for anyone else. That is not a weakness of subjective evidence. It is a feature of consciousness itself. Confidence: high.