 As applied to this predicate form of v-Curry, a weakly contraction-free response would resist the “contraction” from step 2 to step 4 by rejecting the rule VP, and a detachment-free response would reject VD, even in the zero-premise form used at step 6. Again, though, both VP and zero-premise VD have seemed inescapable in view of the intended interpretation of the predicate \(Val\) (Beall &amp; Murzi 2013; Murzi 2014; Murzi &amp; Shapiro 2015; Priest 2015; Zardini 2014).[31]   Finally, even if VD is rejected as illicitly involving transitivity, what seems inescapable is the converse of VP. If so, that would at least rule out a strongly detachment-free response.