 Vetter’s proposal has much in common with Manley &amp; Wasserman’s, which means that the former inherits many of the latter’s advantages and disadvantages. The key difference between them is that Manley &amp; Wasserman, along with other defenders of conditional analyses of dispositions, hold on to the standard conception that the essential characterization of a disposition requires a reference to its stimulus condition as well as its manifestation but Vetter opposes this conception. It remains to be seen how this difference will be settled.