The author argues that as analysis progresses, mutual processes of projective and introjective identification result in an interpenetration of analyst and patient such that the contributions that each participant makes to the analytic dialogue are to a significant degree imbued with the prior contributions of the other. This consideration renders the concepts of evidence and confirmation ambiguous and applicable only with a certain amount of caution. Further complexity is added to analytic protocols by the limited regulation of interpretation by the general guidelines of the theoretical orientation in play. This understanding of the analytic process contrasts sharply with that put forward by those who place particular emphasis on the centrality of the so-called real relationship in bringing about change.