 Alex Worsnip (2018) argues that we can explain the oddness of higher-order evidence by distinguishing between two kinds of epistemic requirements: evidence responsiveness and coherence. If Aisha maintains her belief that G, and believes that her evidence may well not support this belief, she will believe everything her evidence supports. If she revises her belief that she has enough fuel (aligning it with her estimate of what the evidence supports) she will be coherent. This view is one that explicitly appeals to epistemic akrasia, as Worsnip’s coherence norms are effectively anti-akrasia norms.