 The accessibility requirement is more stringent than intelligibility. It does not mandate that a reason for \(A\) to accept \(L\) be justified according to \(A\)’s reasonable standards. (Even if others do not share these reasons). Instead, accessibility requires that reasons be justified according to shared evaluative standards. (Members believe that \(R_A\) justifies \(L\) for \(A\) under common evaluative standards, and \(A\) accepts that \(R_A\) justifies \(L\).) Accessibility permits reasons to differ. \((A\) might endorse \(R_A\) and \(B\) might not). But it requires that they be evaluated as reasons according to shared evaluative standards. Thus, accessibility lies between intelligibility and shareability. (Which we consider next, in section 2.4.3.) Intelligibility permits differing reasons and evaluative standards, whereas shareability permits neither. Accessibility is the most common standard, with at least eight available interpretations. (Eberle 2002, 252–286; for a recent defense, see Boettcher 2015). Define accessibility and the accessibility requirement as follows: