 Let us compare Lange’s stability theory and Woodward &amp; Hitchcock’s invariance theory with respect to the range of counterfactual suppositions or, alternatively, interventions to which the law is applicable. One can say that Lange’s stability theory and Woodward &amp; Hitchcock’s invariance theory start from opposed extremes of the spectrum of stability: (1) Lange starts at the maximum of stability, i.e., he starts with the claim that a law-proposition \(l\) remains true for all counterfactual suppositions that are consistent with \(l\), where by definition a counterfactual supposition is admissible if it is consistent with the laws of nature. In a second step, Lange reduces the set of all counterfactual suppositions consistent with \(l\) because of certain pragmatic goals of the discipline which uses the proposition \(l\). (2) Woodward and Hitchcock start with minimal stability, i.e., the satisfaction of the testing intervention condition for some proposition \(l\). In a second step, Woodward and Hitchcock add to minimal stability that \(l\)’s degree of invariance increases with the number of possible interventions for which \(l\) holds (among other criteria).