The construct map is a particularly good way to approach instrument development, and this author states that he was delighted to read Adam Wyse's thoughts about how to use construct maps for standard setting. For a number of popular standard-setting methods, Wyse shows how typical feedback to panelists fits within a construct map framework. He then goes on to recommend additional types of construct map feedback that could help ameliorate concerns with specific methods. The author acknowledges that this is a major contribution to the standard-setting literature. For example, Wyse points out that panelists using the Angoff method are often given empirical item p-values, but they may not know how to use them. Research has shown that panelists are able to estimate item difficulty only to a moderate degree (Impara & Plake, 1998). Item "p"-values are intended to induce greater consistency by showing panelists the relative difficulties of each item, but what panelists really need is the item difficulty of borderline examinees. That said, this author wonders if standard-setting panelists will have some of the same difficulties using construct maps that his students have. In this article, he addresses such concerns as whether standard setting using a construct map may be better focused at the domain level, as well as whether using construct maps extensively in standard setting has to do with the actual judgment task that panelists are asked to do.