Sure, but once again, the point is that the case of a belief supported by sufficient evidence but for which conclusive logical proof is impossible is not an interesting or controversial case, since being supported by sufficient evidence means that the belief is epistemically justified )on any evidentialist account of justification at any rate).

What is (purportedly) tricky about, say, the problem of other minds, is that it is in dispute whether we are in possession, or could ever be in possession, of sufficient evidence nevermind conclusive proof.