  VD, we recall, was the fundamental presupposition of a fully-fledged HV  interpretation. So, if, in order to escape a powerful argument against the possibility of HV interpretations, these interpretations drop their fundamental premise, this seems not to make much sense. But some interpreters point out that, between holding that only those observables which QM prescribes to have  values[13]  and holding that all of them have values, there is some leeway, namely, to propose that a set of observables, different from the one  prescribed in QM (but neither, in general, more than these, nor, of course, all)  have values. This option is called ‘partial value definiteness.’ One way to do this is to choose, once and for, a set of observables that can be assigned definite values without running afoul of the KS Theorem.  The best-known example of this is the de Broglie-Bohm pilot wave theory, on which position and functions of position always have definite values.  Another approach is to let the set of definite observables vary with the state; this is the approach taken by various modal interpretations.  A variant on this approach is that of Bub (1997), on which some observable R is chosen to to be always-definite; the set of definite observables is then expanded to the maximal set that avoids a KS obstruction.