The construct map is a promising tool for organizing the data standard-setting panelists interpret. The challenge in applying construct maps to standard-setting procedures will be the judicious selection of data to include within this organizing framework. Therefore, this commentary focuses on decisions about what to include in the construct map. The information presented in a standard-setting construct map should support the intended interpretations of the test scores and performance levels. The intended interpretation is what Kane (1992) terms the "interpretive validity" argument. Under Kane's argument-based approach, the standard-setting construct map can provide evidence to support the validity of performance-level interpretations. Specifically, four interpretive validity claims may benefit from the application of construct maps. This article discusses each in turn: (1) Content Mastery; (2) Prediction; (3) Extrapolation; and (4) Evaluation. In summary, construct maps could benefit standard-setting practice to the extent that they enable flexibility in cut-score determinations and help panelists organize information and record judgments.