 An explanatory coherentist might say that, for you to be justified in believing (H), it’s not necessary that you actually believe (1)  and  (2).  However, it is necessary that you have justification for believing (1) and (2). It is your having justification for (1) and (2) that gives you justification for believing (H). A reliability coherentist might make an analogous point. She might say that, to be justified in believing (H), you need not believe anything about the reliability of your belief’s origin. You must, however, have justification for believing that your belief’s origin is reliable; that is, you must have justification for (1) and  (3).  Both versions of dependence coherentism, then, rest on the supposition that it is possible to have justification for a proposition without actually believing that proposition.