In a US criminal case, the jury (or judge if a non-jury trial) either finds the accused guilty or not guilty.
"Guilty" means (or should mean) that the finder of fact was convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty. That is, that the accused did the criminal acts, that no legal defense applied (such as self-defense, or insanity), and that any required state of mind (such as "willful" or "premeditated" or "knowing") applied. There is no separate wording for a verdict which is "absolutely certain" as opposed to one which is "just certain enough to justify a conviction".
A verdict of 'not-guilty' means that the jury (or judge) did not find a guilty verdict to be justified. Perhaps they were convinced that someone else did the criminal act. Perhaps the proof was not good enough to meet the "reasonable doubt" standard. Perhaps a defense applied. Perhaps the needed state of mind was not proved. All of these result in a verdict of "not guilty". There is no language in the verdict that specifies which it was, except for the specialized "not guilty by reason of insanity". However, in some cases a jury may find the defendant guilty of a lesser included offense. For example, a jury may find a person charged with murder guilty only of manslaughter. Or a person charged with reckless driving might be found guilty only of careless driving.
A criminal verdict may or may not be definitive in a separate but related case. For example, a murder verdict in a case over the insurance policy on the life of the person killed. That will depend on the nature of the related case, and the law of the particular jurisdiction involved -- in the US, this will mostly be a matter of state law.