 Pettigrew (2020) offers another way of jettisoning the Dutch Strategy argument for Reflection, while retaining that for Conditionalization.  He observes that the Reflection principle is synchronic, whereas the Dutch Strategy argument for it is diachronic.  As a result, he claims that the Dutch Strategy argument here fails to target Reflection.  Instead, he says that since violators of Reflection can’t follow conditionalization, if they have an updating rule, it is this departure from Conditionalization that is implicated by the Dutch Stategy. This approach to distinguishing the Dutch Strategy argument for Reflection from that for Conditionalization and the probability axioms does not involve some sort of consistency, but rather it is in line with taking Dutch Strategy arguments to move directly from Dutch Book vulnerability to irrationality.  The trouble is that violators of Reflection are subject to a Dutch Strategy no matter what future credences they come to have, regardless of whether they adopt a particular updating rule, so given the understanding of Dutch Strategy vulnerability as indicating some form of irrationality, it is hard to see here why the Dutch Strategy argument for Reflection doesn’t defend the principle as a norm.