Basically a more specific version of Ockham's razor- the philosophy that "plurality is not to be assumed without necessity" and "what can be done with fewer is done in vain with more." Hearing hoofbeats we will assume horse unless compelled to zebra by evidence and rarely should we speculate if it is a lunatic with coconut shells. The difference, is that this theorem further constrains simplicity by the medium in which event is being explained. In film or comic, etc. only so much exposition can be dedicated to certain issues without disrupting the flow of the piece. So we adopt Ockham's razor to this end.
Evidence
This site basically. There are plenty of gaps in knowledge simply because The Matrix is an action film not a documentary or a listing of technical specifications. What we saw was all critical to The Matrix in the medium it was being told. There were no scenes of Zionists going to the bathroom so we don't explicitly know that they do, but we apply this Theorem and it becomes clear that they do... it's just not worth showing.
Objections
Who's to say what's critical enough to be explained and what's not? The very fact that this site tries to explain things that were left unsaid suggests a futile effort, but we don't take that perspective. Instead, we believe that much of the rules were inuitively placed in and likewise inuitively extracted without deliberate thought necessarily. The view we take is that IF these things were to be explained what we provide should be the most elegant answer.