In recent years, several papers have considered phenomena putatively relevant to rule-governed behavior (RGB). The author has condensed a few of his concerns about the practice of drawing casual connections between noncompliance, failure to complete assigned tasks, etc., and basic research on RGB. Some of the most important papers involving conceptual analyses of rules and RGB have been authored by Schlinger and colleagues. Another resource that might be consulted (in addition to excellent papers on rules as contingency-specifying stimuli by Schlinger) is an edited text by Hayes (1989) "Rule Governed Behavior: Contingencies and Instructional Control." The author should be commended for beginning the difficult journey towards a better understanding of RGB, self-control, and ADHD. However, as readers of this commentary might conclude, the author has little affinity for the kind of theorizing described in this paper. While he certainly does not wish to "shoot the messenger", he remains skeptical that the kind of model development described here will lead to better interventions for children diagnosed with ADHD, and he is unaware of any data suggesting that treatment outcomes for ADHD-diagnosed children have improved since such theorizing began. Indeed, although this review makes a number of references to "advances" and "benefits" stemming from the development of new conceptual models, one wonders, who is benefiting? Individuals should be cautious in asserting the value of theory, and advances should not be assumed. "New" does not necessarily equate with "improved". A behavior analytic model demands demonstrable improvements in client outcomes before individuals declare, "mission accomplished."