Nitpick: shouldn’t the observation that you didn’t observe a proof of negation be a “codisproof” (that is, nonobservation of disproof)? Now, disproof is a type of proof (namely a proof of the negation), so you can validly say that codisproof is a type of coproof (namely, a coproof of negation). This does mean that proof and codisproof are the two that are evidence for H, while disproof and coproof are evidence for -H.
Nitpick: shouldn’t the observation that you didn’t observe a proof of negation be a “codisproof” (that is, nonobservation of disproof)? Now, disproof is a type of proof (namely a proof of the negation), so you can validly say that codisproof is a type of coproof (namely, a coproof of negation). This does mean that proof and codisproof are the two that are evidence for H, while disproof and coproof are evidence for -H.