In a recent article, Wall, Crookes, Johnson and Weber (2020) claim that Query Theory has better explanatory success in accounting for recent data than the Explicated Valence Account of Tombu and Mandel (2015). In this commentary, I first argue that this claim is not supported by the full range of available evidence. I then draw attention to the pernicious problem in framing studies in which researchers do not adequately ensure that framing manipulations are what they claim to be—namely, extensionally equivalent re-descriptions of the same events or event classes. The difficulty of estab- lishing extensional equivalence in the context of experimental language games (such as the Asian Disease Problem) is under-appreciated. Unfortunately, inter-subjective agreement that the extensional equivalence assumption is met, even amongst a majority of respectable decision theorists, does not constitute sufficient evidence that it is met. Empirical evidence challenges the equivalence assumption, raising meta-theoretical questions about the integrity of some framing research.