One might instead suggest a weaker view: we have a reason to be  instrumentally coherent as such.  But this weaker version faces a  difficulty in explaining the “strictness” of the Violation Claim.  One  could have a reason to X without being under any requirement to  X, as when that reason to X is outweighed.  But, according to the  Violation Claim, whenever one is instrumentally incoherent, one violates  some requirement.  This “strictness” would thus remain unexplained by  the weaker view (Broome 1999).  Of course, the weaker view—that we have a  reason to be instrumentally coherent as such—could be true even though  it fails to explain the Violation and Satisfaction Claims.