 The central role that the representation consumer plays in this story has led many interpreters to describe Millikan’s theory as a ‘consumer theory’ or an ‘output-oriented version’ of teleosemantics (see, e.g., Jacob 2000; Neander 2004; Shea 2007). According to this interpretation, Millikan maintains that the representation producer, while necessary for an item’s representational status, plays no role in determining its content, which depends exclusively on the functional nature of the relevant consumer. While there are many passages in Millikan’s earlier writings that do indeed suggest such a view (cf. Millikan 1984, ch. 6, and especially Millikan 1989b), it should be noted that Millikan herself rejects this   interpretation.[12]  Moreover, it is clear that Millikan puts greater emphasis on the ‘input-side’ of representational mechanisms in her more recent work, and often stresses the complementary roles of producers and consumers. In her (2017), for instance, she goes to some lengths to argue that representations which are Normally produced always carry natural information about their contents (where ‘natural information’ is understood in a non-Dretskean way), and in other writings, she even maintains that informational considerations of this kind can be employed to answer certain recalcitrant objections to her theory (as we will see below). This may suggest that Millikan’s original account, summarized above, must be supplemented with a claim about natural information, but whether this is indeed the case is an issue that cannot be resolved here.