Justice Hoffstadt on burdens of proof

Today's DJ has Justice Hoffstadt's Go ahead then... prove it! about burdens of proof, how they are "not purely procedural" and "not as well settled as one might believe":

But what about intermediate
burdens of proof?

Burdens of proof are, at bottom, jurisprudential tie-breakers. They tell a trier of fact harboring some uncertainty how to decide the case. Burdens of proof necessarily have two components: (1) who bears the burden, and (2) what the burden is (a preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing evidence, or beyond a reasonable doubt). If we view a burden of proof as telling us, "The tie goes to 'X'", then "X" is the party not bearing the burden of proof, and a "tie" exists when the trier of fact is unsure if the applicable burden has been met.