The authors observe in this commentary that construct maps can help standard-setting panels to make realistic and internally consistent recommendations for performance-level descriptions (PLDs) and cut-scores, but the benefits may not be realized if policymakers do not fully understand the rationale for the recommendations provided by the standard-setting panel and do not have the information needed in a format or display that is meaningful to act upon the panel's recommendations. The authors note that, as indicated by Wyse (this issue), most standard-setting efforts involve at least two major stages. In the initial stage, the standard-setting panel generally goes through a careful process of developing and refining the PLDs and deciding on the corresponding cut-scores. In the second stage, the standard-setting panel's cut-score (and PLD) recommendations are handed off to policymakers, who can accept the recommendations, reject them, or modify them in some way. Policymakers (e.g., state boards, departments of education, licensing agencies) are responsible for deciding on the cut-scores to be applied. The authors maintain that this second stage has not gotten nearly as much attention as the first, and it certainly merits more attention. They describe two ways to transition to the policymaking stage in which construct maps may be helpful to policymakers and also identify areas of needed research. The authors see the potential value in construct maps and encourage continued thinking about and research into maximizing that potential, particularly for policymakers.