A good interpretation contributes to the patient's feeling of being witnessed or recognized. Recognition is an affective experience, not a matter of truth value, so that the truth in an interpretation, while it may be necessary to the recognition, is not sufficient. In fact, since interpretation is hardly the only form in which recognition can be couched, a good outcome can take place apart from any kind of interpretation. But this does not mean that new understanding is unimportant. It's just that the place of that new understanding in clinical process matters more than its content. I discuss Ellen F. Fries'case of Andres from this perspective.