 The Hong-Page model of the value of diversity in exploration, outlined above, has been widely appealed to quite generally as support for cognitive diversity in groups. It has been cited in NASA internal documents, offered in support of diversity requirements at UCLA, and appears in an amicus curiae brief before the Supreme Court in support of promoting diversity in the armed forces (Fisher v. Univ. of Texas 2016). But the model is not robust across its several parameters to support sweepingly general claims that have been made on its basis regarding diversity and ability or expertise (Grim et al. 2019). Is that a problem internal to the model, or an external matter of its interpretation or application? There is much to be said for the latter alternative. The model is and remains an interesting one—interesting often in the ways in which it does show sensitivity to different parameters. Thus a failure of one aspect of validation—robustness—with an eye to one type of general claim can also call for further modelling: modeling intended to explore different effects in different contexts. Rosenstock, Bruner, and O’Connor (2017) offer a robustness test for the Zollman model outlined above. Borg, Frey, Šešelja, and Straßer (2018) offer new modeling grounded precisely in a robustness critique of their predecessors.