Assembling and evaluating warrant for your claims involves giving reasons why these claims might be true or false. Such reasons may be understood as consisting of conjunctions of factual and relevance claims which may be adduced in favour of the claims in question. These claims themselves may in turn be warranted by further such conjunctions, and so on through indefinite higher ‘levels’ of evidence. We show how to structure relevant claims into an evidence role-map. We set out how to apply this to indirect local evidence, referencing a situation-specific causal equation model of each causal step. By reference to our pluralistic account of causation, we identify eight categories of evidence for each step. We introduce a notation for this approach and illustrate it using the Barbados sugar-sweetened beverage tax example, describing its use in post-hoc evaluation and ex ante prediction.