  Note that \(\mathsf{\neg(N\land A)}\) and  \(\mathsf{\neg N\lor\neg A}\) are Boolean equivalents. However,  non-Boolean analyses like Nute (1980a),  Alonso-Ovalle (2009), and Starr (2014: 1049) designed to  capture  SDA  break this equivalence, and so fail  to predict that  SNCA  is valid. Willer (2015, 2017) develops a dynamic strict analysis which validates both  SDA  and SNCA. Fine (2012a,b) advocates for a departure from possible worlds semantics altogether in order to capture both  SDA and SNCA. However, these  accounts also face counterexamples. Fine (2012a,b) and Willer (2015, 2017) render \((\neg\phi_1\lor\neg\phi_2)&gt;\psi\) and \(\neg(\phi_1\land\phi_2)&gt;\psi\) equivalent, while Champollion, Ciardelli, and Zhang (2016) present a powerful counterexample to this equivalence.