Article 3(5) introduces a procedural presumption: where a defendant fails to comply with an order to disclose or preserve evidence at its disposal, the national court is to presume the defendant's non-compliance with a relevant duty of care, in particular the duty of care that the disclosed evidence was intended to prove, that the disclosure was intended to establish for the purposes of the relevant damages claim. The presumption is rebuttable.
The graph holds this control, the 0 it maps to, and the evidence behind each claim, over MCP and REST.