 Distinguishing between rationality-focused and reliability-focused level-bridging principles highlights another choice point for epistemologists. Some take questions about akrasia to be central, and defend rationality-based level-bridging principles for that reason (Smithies 2019 is a paradigmatic example; see also Neta 2019). Others—even those who support level-bridging—take cases like the unmarked clock to show that these questions aren’t so central after all, and that perhaps epistemic akrasia is not so significant (Christensen 2016a and 2021a are paradigmatic examples of this approach). A third strategy is to say that anti-akrasia, or level-coherence principles, have a special sort of normative status that differs from other rational requirements. Some of the proposals discussed in the next section defend this view.