In his opening statements, Humphry takes a critical attitude with respect to psychometric modeling. As he advances and discusses Michell's well-known criticisms, the reader is certain that this paper must have something on offer that deviates considerably from conventional psychometrics. After all "most psychometricians have either explicitly or implicitly adopted Stevens' (1946) definition of measurement" and this paper is surely of a different nature. Humphry thus generates considerable conceptual suspense and high expectations. So what is the actual content of Humphry's article? Does it provide with a revolutionary take on psychometrics? Does it tackle Michell's criticisms or even begin to address them? Hardly so. In this commentary, the authors highlight two serious problems of Humphry's presentation. The first is of a statistical nature and the second, of a conceptual nature. First, although, the model is theoretically interesting, it remains to be seen whether the model could ever be estimated and tested because it is not identified. Second, even if the model could be fitted, it faces exactly the same conceptual problems as the Rasch model, on which it is based. It is therefore wholly unclear whether it could even address Michell's criticisms, let alone solve them. (Contains 1 footnote.)