Paul Newton (2010), with his characteristic concern about theory, has set out two different ways of thinking about the basis upon which equivalences of one sort or another are established between test score scales. His reason for doing this is a desire to establish "the defensibility of linkages lower on the continuum than concordance." His ultimate aim appears to be to develop a generally accepted theoretical paradigm (in the Kuhnian sense) to which practitioners of linking can appeal in order to defend what they have done. Linking is done, certainly in the UK context with which the author is most familiar, because people wish to treat the results from different tests or exams as interchangeable. Interchangeable exam results can be required for a variety of uses. Newton argues that these different uses set different requirements for linking that is sufficient to allow valid conclusions to be drawn--such as deciding which individual should be selected or deciding which institution is better--and the author wouldn't argue with him when he says "decisions on linking . . . should be guided by contexts for use and reasons for linking." However, the author is not sure that there is a difference between the two frameworks Newton discusses as he makes out. In this article, the author explains why he is not sure that the two frameworks that Newton describes are really very different. (Contains 1 table and 2 footnotes.)