In this essay, I offer a response to Stemhagen, Reich, and Muth's (see EJ1089246) delineation of disciplined judgment. I draw from my latest obsession with epistemologies of ignorance to complicate their focus on disciplinarity with questions over how non-knowledge gets framed and created. I use Suniti Sharma's seven-year study to highlight the breakdowns generated when lived experience and personal knowledge clash with canonical and disciplinary knowledge. I offer three counter-vignettes as alternate readings of classroom teaching and learning. I end with the possibility that proliferating theories and stories might allow us to intervene within and against an audit culture.