Distinction between a claim and evidence in support of it?

Sections 368(1) and (6) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) provided:

Written statement must be made

(1)  If the ART makes a decision on a review, the ART must make a written statement that:

(a)  sets out the decision of the ART on the review; and

(b)  includes a statement of reasons (within the meaning of the ART Act) for the ART’s decision; and

(c)  in the case of a decision under paragraph 368C(3)(b) or subsection 368C(5) to confirm the dismissal of an application—indicates that, under subsection 368C(6), the decision under review is taken to be affirmed; and

(d)  records the day and time the statement is made.

...

When decision taken to have been made

(6)  If the decision is not given to the applicant orally before the written statement is made, the decision is taken to have been made:

(a)  by the making of the written statement; and

(b)  on the day, and at the time, the written statement is made.

Some of the questions to the Federal Court (FCA) were as follows:

Question 1: Is there a "lack of utility in seeking to erect some rigid distinction between so-called “claims” and so-called “evidence in support of claims”"?

Question 2: Can claims of protection expressed in general or tentative terms nevertheless rationally bear upon the question of whether s 36(2)(a) or (aa) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) are satisfied, meaning they cannot simply be disregarded?

Question 3: Can it be said that "the making of a written statement under s 368(1) is not “posterior” to making a decision" and that, rather, "the effect of s 368(6) is that a decision by the Tribunal is made “by” the making of a written statement"?

The FCA answered those questions as follows: