 An advantage of this approach is that it allows us to focus on accuracy as the primary target of epistemic rationality. Schoenfield frames both modes of evaluation in terms of accuracy: specifically, the accuracy-related consequences of the plan. So if she is right that the best-plan-to-make/best-plan-to-follow distinction can explain higher-order evidence, we would end up with a relatively uniform two-norm view. See Horowitz 2019 for two objections: first, that focusing on consequences seems to open the door to non-epistemic plans, such as “have a sandwich before reasoning”; second, that the best plan to make might differ among different believers, in which case this strategy would not yield anything like a general defense of revising in response to higher-order evidence. This second worry also raises questions about DiPaolo’s proposal and how universal we can expect a non-ideal rationality to be.