 A requirement often suggested is that a hyperintensional account of this or that notion shouldn’t make it as fine-grained as the syntax of the language one is working with—on pain of giving away the very point of having a semantics for it. Propositions may be more fine-grained than sets of possible worlds, but they had better not be mappable 1:1 to the sentences expressing them. Otherwise, we would lose one main motivation for having propositions to begin with, namely that syntactically different sentences can say the same thing. It also seems intuitive that, e.g., the content of \(A\) should be the same as that of \(A \land A\), and that \(A \land B\) should have the same content as \(B \land A\): “It’s windy and rainy today” seems to just say the same thing as “It’s rainy and windy today” (for further motivations for coarse-graining, see Bjerring &amp; Schwarz 2017). On the other hand, a limited cognitive agent may fail to make even the simplest inference starting from what she knows or believes: she may believe that \(A \land B\), fail to perform Conjunction Elimination, and thus fail to believe that \(A\). Psychologically very realistic accounts of knowledge or belief seem to require extreme fine-grainedness, cutting more finely than same-saying. Jespersen (2010) is one example of a theory that has very fine-grained meanings available for some constructions, while offering more coarse-grained meanings for some traditional purposes where little or no hyperintensionality is required.