 As of this writing, two related questions emerge as central to the debate going forward. First: is higher-order evidence significant because it gives us information about our own rationality? Or because it gives us information about our own reliability? And second: are there genuine norms prohibiting epistemic akrasia? (So, should our beliefs about what’s rational line up with our beliefs about the world?) Or does the appearance of these norms merely arise because of nearby norms regarding reliability—or, perhaps, because there are multiple, conflicting modes of epistemic normativity? Untangling the puzzles surrounding higher-order evidence will ultimately involve answering these questions as well, as well as broader questions about the relationship between rationality and truth.