Summary: The Goldilocks principle applies to evidence and disclosure in the context of refugee proceedings, where there needs to be a balance of the "just right" amount of evidence to support a claim. The claimant is obligated to corroborate their claim and benefits from a high threshold for adverse plausibility findings, but must provide evidence that is reasonably available. Too little evidence may result in insufficiency of evidence, while too much evidence may raise questions about its provenance. The principle values quality over quantity and finding the balance between too weak and too strong evidence. Determining the "just right" amount of evidence depends on the claimant profile and country in question.
The Goldilocks principle refers to the idea that certain conditions must be just right in order for something to be successful or optimal. The reference to "Goldilocks" comes from the children's story "Goldilocks and the Three Bears," in which the titular character tries different bowls of porridge and finds that one is too hot, one is too cold, and one is just right. In a similar way, the Goldilocks principle states that there is a "just right" or optimal range of conditions for a given system or process.
I once discussed the principle in oral arguments at the Federal Court; arguing that the Officer's decision was unreasonable as it castigated the employment letter as too similar to the NOC main duties. The Officer had their own perspective of what constituted a "just right" employment letter setting out job duties.