The paper focuses on a routine activity of academic supervision: Giving and receiving feedback based on the student's master's thesis manuscript. Two case analyses are presented on fundamentally critical feedback. Such feedback constitutes a recommendation to the student to seriously rethink the thesis, but there are various interactional possibilities available for the student not to accept this recommendation. The analysis shows how persistent, albeit subdued, resistance to feedback occurs in two different sequential environments, and how cumulative misalignment results from this development. Pedagogical implications of the analysis are discussed, and it is suggested that the supervision should be viewed and explicitly addressed as a meeting point for two agendas. (Contains 1 table and 7 footnotes.)