At the outset of his thoughtful and thought-provoking article, Haertel (this issue) clearly identifies the issue with which he will be dealing: The disjunct, or gap, in current approaches to evaluating the merits of a given test, between the intended uses of that test and the validity of its score-based interpretations. The author thinks that Haertel has identified precisely the most critical issue in current thinking on validation in measurement. In the rest of the article Haertel "offers another way of framing these concerns," using several different test purposes as examples to illustrate this. At the heart of Haertel's expanded view of validation is a distinction between what he calls "direct" and "indirect" purposes, or mechanisms of testing effects. Haertel discusses examples of "direct" and "indirect" test uses, drawing more or less on Kane's notion of interpretive and validation arguments. The author opines that Haertel's argument that both direct effects (decisions) and indirect effects (consequences) of test use must be dealt with by test developers and test users is compelling, and marks a significant step forward. However, it is not clear to him that Haertel adequately addresses the central problem in the expanded view of validation he presents: linking score-based interpretations to decisions and consequences. The author suggests that in order for test developers to take consequences into consideration, test design and development needs to begin with a consideration of test use. In the remainder of this commentary, the author will outline an approach that he believes begins to address these issues. (Contains 1 figure and 1 footnote.)