Strictly speaking, evidence already implies bearings for or against a proposition. But often times, people collect candidates for evidence before they know whether they can count as evidence or not. "Data" will do most of the time, but there are occasions where "data" would not do, e.g. on an archaeology site. Nobody calls dinosaur bones data.
Why not information or data. The mere existence of some piece of realia will never be evidence. The information derived from it, its presence, its condition and other perceptable data are what will become the evidence.
For example, the bone. It is a thing in or on the ground. Someone will have to tease out of htat thing that it is a bone, that it came from a dinosaur, that it is a certain size, shape, age, soil loction, distance from other bones, etc. To even simply say We found dinosaur bones requires the gleaning, processing and conveying of a range of information or data.
The evidence is ultimately that recitation of information, not just A lump was on the ground (and even that involves data processing by the speaker).
The best terms to use for "candidates for evidence" are likely "potential evidence", "findings", or, for the most general, "facts",
I'd recommend the latter for brevity's sake, unless you want to avoid the connotations of "things that are taken to be true."