P. J. Kellman, P. Garrigan, & T. F. Shipley presented a theory of 3-D interpolation in object perception. Along with results from many researchers, this work supports an emerging picture of how the visual system connects separate visible fragments to form objects. In his commentary, B. L. Anderson challenges parts of that view, especially the idea of a common underlying interpolation component in modal and amodal completion (the identity hypothesis). Here the authors analyze Anderson's evidence and argue that he neither provides any reason to abandon the identity hypothesis nor offers a viable alternative theory. The authors offer demonstrations and analyses indicating that interpolated contours can appear modally despite absence of the luminance relations, occlusion geometry, and surface attachment that Anderson claims to be necessary. The authors elaborate crossing interpolations as key cases in which modal and amodal appearance must be consequences of interpolation. Finally, the authors dispute Anderson's assertion that vision researchers are misguided in using objective performance methods, and they argue that his challenges to relatability fail because contour and surface processes, as well as local and global influences, have been distinguished experimentally.