 Aisha’s “first-order” evidence is her evidence bearing directly on her beliefs about G: that is, the evidence she receives by consulting her dials, gauges, and maps. Her “higher-order” evidence is her evidence suggesting that she’s at risk for hypoxia. Higher-order evidence bears directly on Aisha’s epistemic situation in various ways, but does not bear directly on G. The primary question that this case raises, for the higher-order evidence literature, is: does Aisha’s higher-order evidence also rationally affect her beliefs about G? (That is, does it bear on G in some indirect way?)