a CUE motion under the same standard by which it reviews matters on direct appeal”). Conversely, there is no disadvantage in raising a colorable argument at the Court, even if an appellant believes the odds of success to be low. Generally, challenges to final decisions on the basis of CUE can be broken into two broad categories: “Either the correct facts, as they were known at the time, were not before the adjudicator or the statutory or regulatory provisions extant at the time were incorrectly applied.” Russell v. Principi 3 Vet.App. 310, 313 (1992) (en banc). The latter of these categories — that the law was incorrectly applied — can and should be raised on direct appeal to this Court, where a claimant has a much lower evidentiary burden to satisfy. See King, 26 Vet.App. at 441 (<HOLDING>). In contrast, the former type of CUE — where
holding that cue required a showing that the alleged error in the challenged decision would have manifestly changed the outcome at the time it was made holding there was not plain error because a different result probably would not have been reached absent the trial courts alleged error holding that to prove the existence of cue  the claimant must show that an outcomedeterminative error occurred  which means that absent the alleged clear and unmistakable error the benefit sought would have been granted at the outset quoting bustos v west 179 f3d 1378 1381 fedcir1999 holding that where the record is insufficient to show that the alleged error occurred the presumption that the trial court acted without error must prevail holding that party asserting plain error must show a reasonable probability that but for the error claimed the result of the proceeding would have been different