 Both the notational consequentializer and the pragmatic consequentializer are committed to what’s known as the Extensional Equivalence Thesis: for every plausible non-consequentialist theory, there is an act-consequentialist counterpart theory that yields, in every possible world, the same set of deontic verdicts that it yields (Dreier 2011: 98). The notational consequentializer is committed to this, for it is just the first premise in their assimilation argument for consequentializing. And the pragmatic consequentializer is committed to this, for the second premise in their pragmatic argument for consequentializing assumes that, in consequentializing a non-consequentialist theory, we can faithfully represent its extension.