I don't think it should be based on actual damages done, more potential damages and intent...

If you shoot someone with the intent to kill them, but miss, you don't just get let off as if nothing happened because no one got hurt....

You just need a level of evidence that shows intent to cause an impact on the person accused of rapes life.

I think a key point is needing some proof that they were in fact making it not, with this not being the same as not being able to prove the rape happened.

Take this situation for example.

Claiming someone drugged and then raped you in a hotel room.

This very much could have gone either way, they could have found that there was just not enough evidence to show that he raped her, this doesn't mean she's lying and should be punished either!

Say he was found innocent, nothing happened negatively to him, but you then found a text on her phone to a friend, saying she's worried they will find out she was annoyed at him for sleeping with other women and threatened to accuse him of rape to her friend to hurt him.

No damage done, obvious intent to cause it...

You wouldn't prosecute? Naa, you would.