Arrange these theories of the boundary of eventual intent from the most purely cognitive to the most demanding on the will.

1. It is enough that the person represented the result as a serious probability
2. It is enough that the person took the risk seriously and acted regardless
3. The person must have remained indifferent to whether the result occurred
4. The person must have accepted the result, in the sense that they would have acted even knowing it would follow

The gradient shows why the dispute persists. Each step towards the will makes the concept more faithful to the intuition that intending is more than foreseeing, and harder to prove, until the last position asks a counterfactual that no evidence can settle directly and that courts end up inferring from the conduct itself.