Technically, it will be the courts who (ultimately) interpret the gap, and it's worked so far for other standards like 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Courts have a tendency to be less capricious than a regulator.
I'd even go so far as to argue that "reason" is one of those things where specific examples can illustrate, but no more. Especially with regards to technology -- what is reasonable today, can be unreasonable tomorrow (eg: SHA1).
In the meantime, I'm positive that as of right now, 99% of the interpretation is performed by the data processors, and in most cases to their own benefit.
Technically, it will be the courts who (ultimately) interpret the gap, and it's worked so far for other standards like 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Courts have a tendency to be less capricious than a regulator.
I'd even go so far as to argue that "reason" is one of those things where specific examples can illustrate, but no more. Especially with regards to technology -- what is reasonable today, can be unreasonable tomorrow (eg: SHA1).
In the meantime, I'm positive that as of right now, 99% of the interpretation is performed by the data processors, and in most cases to their own benefit.