In this rejoinder, the authors provide their thoughts on each of the commentaries of the seven respondents to their article. They find that the response of Kyngdon differs markedly from the others in questioning some basic elements of the methods of analysis that they propose for the construction of a "road map." The authors emphasize that they are not claiming that the methods illustrated are the only possible way to analyze data from a learning progression, but rather, they are offering it as one method that they have found useful in formative work on progressions (i.e., in refining the progression through empirical observations), and in application of the methods (e.g., in designing teacher-friendly reports). They point out two fundamental misunderstandings in Kyngdon's reading of their article. First, the authors agree that the image of a learning progression as presented in their Figure 3 (Black, Wilson, & Yao, this issue, p. 83) can be seen to correspond mathematically to a partial order (and, in fact, it is also a multidimensional structure). Hence, in the absence of further detail, measurement across the components of this figure is not a straightforward procedure. Thus, what they describe in their Section 5 is a method for measuring within the components. They emphasize that this is always a hypothesis for each component--where a component is found to be multidimensional, it is better represented as multiple subcomponents. The modeling of the entirety of a structure as complex as that shown in Figure 3 involves a considerably more complicated model than the one the authors discuss in their Section 5--one might, for instance, invoke concepts of ordered latent class models, such as is discussed in Wilson (in press) and Diakow, Irribarra, and Wilson (2011). Second, the authors disagree that the ordering presented in a construct map (as described in their Section 5) denies the possibility of continuity between the levels of the construct. Kyngdon makes his own assumption that the levels are discrete and hence are not commensurable. But this is indeed only his assumption. The authors' perspective is broader than this and allows that the levels of the construct be interpreted as "typical cases," whereas the actual realizations can shade off in between the typical levels. Of course, there needs to be a serious effort made to establish a reasonable demarcation between these, and that is much of the work of the development of the outcome space. The Wright map is quite consistent with this broader assumption.