Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?

[Mudhammam]

Being abstract, it seems to me those are subject to reason rather than evidence. Whether or not they're agent-neutral doesn't seem relevant to the question in your OP. Perhaps I'm missing something?

Right, I agree. So then claims would seem to fall into two groups, those that are evidential in nature and those that are strictly rational. "Claims demand evidence" would apply exclusively to the first group, while "claims demand reasons" (that is, right or good reasons) would seem to apply to *all* claims. My only point about agent-neutrality is that this presumes reason to be both purely abstract (at least in the second group) and related to objective reality, which I thought your demarcation implied an either/or distinction. Maybe I misinterpreted though.