 How might the identity theorist respond to this objection? One possible strategy would be to make a distinction between fact and factuality, as follows. Factuality, one might say, is a reification of facts. Once you have a fact, you also get, as an ontological spin-off, the factuality of that fact. The fact, being a proposition, exists at all possible worlds where the proposition exists, though in some of these worlds it may not be a fact: it will not be a fact in worlds where the proposition is false. The factuality of that fact, by contrast, only exists at those worlds where the fact is a fact—where the proposition is true. So factuality is a bit like a trope. Compare grumpy Socrates again. Grumpy Socrates, the identity theorist might contend, exists at all worlds where Socrates exists, though at some of those worlds he is not grumpy. But Socrates’ grumpiness—that particular trope—exists only at worlds where Socrates is grumpy. That seems to obviate the problem, because the suggestion being canvassed here is that grumpy Socrates is identical not with Socrates’ grumpiness—so that the fact that these two entities have different modal properties need embarrass no one—but rather with Socrates. Similarly, the suggestion is that the proposition that Socrates is wise is identical not with the factuality of the fact that Socrates is wise, but just with that fact. So the identity theorist would accommodate the objector’s point by insisting that facts exist at possible worlds where their factualities do not exist.