Usually, in argumentation, the proof-standards that are used are fixed a priori by the procedure. However decision-aiding is a context where these may be modified dynamically during the process, depending on the responses of the client. The expert indeed needs to adapt and refine its choice of an appropriate method of aggregation, so that it fits the preference model inferred from the interaction. In this paper we examine how this aspect can be handled in an argumentation-based decision-aiding framework. The first contribution of the paper is conceptual: the notion of a concept lattice based on simple properties and allowing to navigate among the different proof-standards is put forward. We then show how this can be integrated within the Carneades model while still preserving its essential properties; and illustrates our proposal with a detailed example.