 Recently, arguments have been offered by Huber (2008b) in favor of \(D\), by Park (2014), Pruss (2014), and Vassend (2015) in favor of \(L\) (also see Morey, Romeijn, and Rouder 2016 for an important connection with statistics), and by Crupi and Tentori (2010) in favor of \(Z\). Hájek and Joyce (2008, 123), on the other hand, have seen different measures as possibly capturing “distinct, complementary notions of evidential support” (also see Schlosshauer and Wheeler 2011, Sprenger and Hartmann 2020, Ch.1, and Steel 2007 for tempered forms of pluralism). The case of measure \(R\) deserves some more specific comments, however. Following Fitelson (2007), one could see \(R\) as conveying key tenets of so-called “likelihoodist” position about evidential reasoning (see Royall 1997 for a classical statement, and Chandler 2013 and Sober 1990 for consonant arguments and inclinations). There seems to be some consensus, however, that compelling objections can be raised against the adequacy of \(R\) as a proper measure of relevance confirmation (see, in particular, Crupi, Festa, and Buttasi 2010, 85–86; Eells and Fitelson 2002; Gillies 1986, 112; and compare Milne 1996 with Milne 2010, Other Internet Resources). In what follows, too, it will be convenient to restrict our discussion to \(D, L\) and \(Z\) as candidate measures. All the results to be presented below are invariant for whatever choice among these three options, and across ordinal equivalence with each of them (but those results do not always extend to measures ordinally equivalent to \(R\)).