I'm studying AQA A-level business studies (currently in Y2) so this may not be very specific to your exam board but from my experience of writing evaluative comments, it's usually to argue a limitation to your point.
This also depends on the number of marks given for the question, for example a higher marked question such as a 25 marker (in the case of AQA) would have a much longer evaluation where you analyse your evaluation much more than a 16 marker.
It may not be the same for Cambridges' exam board but I would definitely stick to the mark scheme as they quite literally use this to determine how many marks you'll get.
From what I gather from 1), its a pretty similar structure from what I've mentioned above which, in more simple terms: point, contextualised analysis with chains of reasoning, and an evaluative comment that is also analysed with chains of reasoning (and repeat for a second point)
For example, if my point was a business should be capital intensive and I argue for this point in my analysis, my evaluation would be something that limits this (essentially an 'it depends on' comment) such as what sector the business is in, what type of product/service they offer etc. I guess your first marks for the evaluation would come from the evaluative point, and the rest would be for analysing your evaluative point- and you would have to do this for your other points too.
Of course I am just speaking of my own experience and having it being AQA but I have always reached the highest level with my essays following this type of structure. Ultimately, follow what the mark schemes say because, at the end of the day, that is what examiners use to mark your essays.