 While incorporating the notion of evidence into a reliablist theory carries potential advantages, it also raises issues of its own. As we’ve seen, traditional process reliabilists resisted defining “justification” in terms of evidence because they didn’t want an analysis that relied on any unreduced epistemic notions (Goldman 1979). Moreover, even those who do not share these reductive ambitions may well want some account of the notion of evidence possession that appears in clause 1) of Evidentialist Reliabilism. Comesaña suggests following Conee and Feldman (2004) in opting for a “mentalist” construal of our evidence, according to which our evidence ultimately consists in various mental states. While this is a start, there remains the question of which mental states constitute a subject’s evidence. Are they conscious experiences? States that are accessible to consciousness? Beliefs?