This is a response to a focus article by Briggs and Peck (2015) in issue 13(2). It should have been published in issue 13(3-4) alongside a rejoinder by Briggs and Peck that did appear. Due to an oversight, it was not published there and appears here. See issue 13(3-4) for a rejoinder to this response. Briggs and Peck (2015) propose what amounts to an elaborate Lego construction kit--this is Ho's analogy for their recipe for defensible vertical scales. These are instructions for castles in the clouds. Their fundamental error is neither of construction nor aspiration. These are nice castles, and they are mostly well designed. Their error is one of misperception. They have made an insufficient case that anyone wants or needs castles over and above, say, cars. In this four-part response, Ho first argues that, contrary to the way that Briggs and Peck motivate their castles, the difference between castles and cars is not a tension that needs to be resolved for any practical reason. Ho then argues that their proposed solution does not resolve this tension anyway--castles do not solve problems that cars do. To stretch the metaphor, the author next argues that their focus on castles may risk the design of cars. Ho closes by encouraging a focus back on frameworks for improving the use of test scores for practical purposes. Let's facilitate better use of cars as well as enabling castles.