Evidence-neutral

For some proposition, p, if attainable evidence is compatible with both p and ¬p, then further knowledge thereof is unattainable.
I'm tempted to call such statements a difference that makes no difference ^{(Bateson) (Information)}, but maybe that could be misleading.
Sagan's garage dragon (an evidence-immunization procedure) and Wisdom's gardener could be examples.
Unlike logic, such statements can easily be ampliative.

All-and-some

Following Watkins, where the domain of inquiry is boundless/indefinite:
• (∀) empirical universal propositions are falsifiable but not verifiable
• (∃) existential propositions are unfalsifiable but verifiable
Statements with universal and existential quantification (in that order) are unfalsifiable and nonverifiable.
Watkins gave this example: "For every metal there is a melting point."
The principle of sufficient reason could be another.
(I'm vaguely reminded of the old black swans thing.)
Whereas science employs stop-gaps, such statements can be ampliative (in an ontological sense).

Metaphysics

The above is well into metaphysics, and suggest caution ⚠, which was the intended topic.

The process of condensation and abstraction into a model can highlight how utterly absurd some theories are; how they are all-embracing monstrous metaphysical visions. — David Gamez

After all, no manner of ideation on our part can make it so.
A related observation: over in science, we have some pretty good and reliable mathematical models of various aspects of our world, yet, some folk then shift all weight onto a model and call that reality instead ^{(the map is not the territory)}.
There are all kinds of angles on this stuff, but, what do you make of it? Both Indispensable and basically questionable?
Seems important if such things make it into politics, for example.