 In response to cases like this, Woods (2018) distinguishes between what he calls vacuous and non-vacuous grounding. Woods suggests that cases like [Some fact or other obtains] involve vacuous grounding, and, while vacuous grounding isn’t irreflexive, non-vacuous grounding is. Roughly speaking, \([P],\) \([P'],\) … vacuously grounds \([Q]\) when the former grounds the latter, yet the identity and nature of the constituents of \([P],\) \([P'],\) … aren’t explanatorily relevant to \([Q]\) obtaining. Perhaps [The truck is red] is a vacuous ground for [Some fact or other obtains]—while the former grounds the latter, it seems that the identity and nature of the truck and the property of being red don’t contribute to explaining why [Some fact or other] obtains.