In this paper, we reply to the commentary of Buchner and Erdfelder (this volume; henceforth B&E) on our analysis of response bias in the process dissociation procedure (Wainwright and Reingold, 1996; henceforth W&R). Our original analysis of the response bias issue is, in part, a critique of Buchner, Erdfelder, and Vaterrodt- Plunnecke’s (1995; henceforth B&E&V-P) multinomial modeling exposition of the process dissociation procedure (henceforth PDP; Jacoby, 1991; Jacoby, Toth, & Yonelinas, 1993). In particular, the framework proposed by B&E&V-P obscures rather than clarifies the relational assumptions between conscious influences and guessing (C-G), as well as between unconscious influences and guessing (U-G). Furthermore, we demonstrated that explicitly considering these relational assumptions leads to additional corrective models that were ignored by B&E&V-P. We specified a general class of corrective models and illustrated it by deriving three response bias corrections to the PDP. In their response, rather than directly addressing the substantive issues that we raised, B&E focus their attention on what they considered to be more or less subtle problems in our framework. Our framework is deemed not only fatally flawed, but also a simple reformulation of the corrective model presented in B&E&V-P. Unfortunately, B&E seriously misrepresent our analysis. In addition, they revise the framework presented in B&E&V-P, in an attempt to accommodate our points without conceding their validity. We therefore urge the interested reader, rather than relying on B&E’s representations, to examine the issues as they appear in B&E&V-P and in W&R. In this paper, we undertake the clarification of the central issues that were obscured in B&E’s response.