This reply article is to be published alongside: Hernik, M., & Southgate, V. (2012). This is a response to the commentaries on Hernik and Southgate (2012) by Biro (2012), Kuhlmeier and Robson (2012) and Luo and Choi (2012). Both L&C and K&R reject the authors' conclusion that an absence of a Woodward-effect in some single-object versions of the paradigm reflects a lack of goal-attribution. Both argue that, while infants would naturally interpret a direct approach to a solitary object (i.e. an action, which is lacking in cues to the goal, like efficiency and selectivity) as goal-directed, they may need these additional cues in order to generate the further expectation required for the Woodward-effect: that an agent will persevere in acting on the same target. Thus, the point of contention is whether these cues primarily facilitate goal-attribution, or rather the expectation of perseverance. Neither K&R nor L&C provide any independent evidence that efficiency can serve as a cue to continued action on the same object.