 Though Re-Cal has us conditioning on second-order evidence, the adjustment it recommends depends on both first- and second-order evidence and does not always favor one level or the other. How much authority the second-order claim about the reliability/calibration curve has depends very much on the quality of one’s evidence about it. This can be seen by imagining being uncertain about, e.g., one’s calibration curve, i.e., \(P(\PR(q\mid P(q) = x) = y) &lt; 1\), and doing a Jeffrey conditionalization version of Re-Cal (Roush 2017, Other Internet Resources). But even in case one has perfect knowledge of one’s calibration curve, the role of the first-order evidence in determining one’s first-order belief is ineliminable. The verdict, the level of confidence, that the first order gave you for q is the index for determining which point on the calibration curve is relevant to potentially correcting your degree of belief. To understand why this is far from trivial, recall that the curve can in principle and does often in fact have different magnitudes and directions of distortion at different confidences. The verdict’s dependence on the first-order evidential support relation is different from that of EC in another way, since it uses not the objective support relation at the first order but the consequences of the subject’s take on it. Thus, Ana above would not be left not knowing how to make herself rational.