Which of the following might be a consequence of sticking strictly to simplified procedures?

Sticking strictly to simplified procedures can indeed lead to possible limitations on evidence gathering. Simplified procedures are designed to streamline legal processes, potentially sacrificing some aspects of thoroughness in favor of expediency. This streamlined approach might restrict the types of evidence that can be presented or the manner in which it is gathered, as the focus tends to shift towards efficiency rather than comprehensive investigation. For instance, rules governing what evidence can be introduced may be more rigid under simplified procedures, reducing opportunities for parties to present all relevant information or clarify complex issues.

The other options highlight effects that may not necessarily arise from stringent adherence to simplified procedures. Undefined legal outcomes are more likely related to ambiguities in law or poor application of legal principles rather than the processes themselves. Increased litigant satisfaction can occur when cases are resolved quickly, but this is not guaranteed with simplified procedures; sometimes, parties may feel unsatisfied without fully fleshed out evidence. Enhanced decision-making speed is indeed a characteristic of simplified procedures, but it does not contribute to the limitation on evidence gathering as directly as the selected answer does.