Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to consider entrepreneurship education (EE) evaluation. Specifically, it explores some of the challenges involved in applying the "HEInnovate" tool, and considers ways in which its accuracy and value might be strengthened. Using Storey (2000) by way of reflective critique, the paper proposes an augmented framework to support the application of "HEInnovate". It provides a further framework to help signpost those involved in EE towards a more robust consideration of EE evaluation. In so doing, the paper aims to contribute to extant theory in the field of EE by: raising awareness of the continued need for evaluation, highlighting the potential benefits as well as the associated challenges of applying a self-assessment framework such as the "HEInnovate" and finally, proposing an augmented framework, which enhances the accuracy and value of the "HEInnovate" tool. Some avenues worthy of future research are identified. Design/methodology/approach: This is a conceptual paper that draws on extant EE evaluation frameworks, specifically Storey's "Six steps" to Heaven (2000), to explore how a more robust application of the "HEInnovate" self-evaluation tool might be achieved. Findings: The "HEInnovate" framework is an easily accessible and widely applicable self-evaluation tool that higher education institutions (HEIs) are encouraged to use to determine their level of innovativeness and entrepreneurialism and, as a proxy, their preparedness to deliver EE programmes. The paper highlights the inherent challenges involved in administering self-evaluation frameworks of this nature, and uses Storey to identify areas for consideration so that the framework's overall reliability and robustness can be enhanced, and findings rendered more accurate. The search for the "flawless" evaluative framework is likened to that of "Hunting the heffalump". Research limitations/implications: As a conceptual, perspective paper, the paper is limited by personal opinion. The focus on a single self-assessment institutional evaluative framework is a further limiting factor. That said, this approach prompts those using the "HEInnovate" framework to reflect on ways in which its application can be rendered more accurate and reliable. Practical implications: The findings offer practical guidelines to enhance the overall robustness and accuracy of the "HEInnovate" framework. The paper will be of value to HEIs seeking to introduce or increase their EE provision. Originality/value: The paper demonstrates a novel application of Storey's evaluative framework, allowing users of the "HEInnovate" tool to greatly enhance its robustness and value. It also provides two new frameworks signposting entrepreneurship educators towards more a more robust consideration of EE evaluation.