Atlas and Aron (2017/2019) invite us to think about the utility of enactments– not only as something that the analytic pair must recognize and work their way out of– but as a form of engagement with the patient’s prospective potential that can only emerge in a rich dyadic field. But what of the problems generated by the analytic dyad’s conscious and/or unconscious avoidance of getting involved enough with one another that those enactments—those “dramatic dialogues” –necessary for transformation can, in fact, develop? Using a clinical illustration, I build on my relational argument for frequency as a necessary (if not sufficient) condition for a psychoanalysis that relies on enactment as the mainstay of therapeutic action. It is frequency that stands a chance of exposing both analyst and patient to enough data that they find their way into, not only out of, those enactments that require contact with otherwise disavowed, yet potentially generative, aspects of self.