 Hiddleston (2005) observes that interventionism does not predict \(\mathsf{F&gt;B}\) to be true. It tells one to delete the arrow going in to F, set its value to 1, and project the consequences of doing so. However, none of the other values depend on F so they keep their actual values: \(L=0\) and \(B=0\). Accordingly, \(\mathsf{F&gt;B}\) is false, contrary to intuition. Further, because the intervention on F has destroyed its connection to B, it’s not even possible to tweak interventionism to allow values to flow backwards (to the left) through the  network.[43]  Hiddleston’s (2005) counterexample highlights the possibility of another kind of counterexample featuring embedded conditionals. Consider again the network in  Figure 12.  The following counterfactual seems true (Starr 2012: 13).