We investigate the supervaluational Kripkean account of truth and show how it can apply to finding rational indeterminate credences in undermining scenarios. Our construction is general and could apply to a whole range of domains.

We argue that accuracy-theoretic considerations still tell the risk-sensitive to update by conditionalization.

We note that strict propriety follows from weak propriety, given truth-directedness, thus closing an argumentative gap in the literature.

This argues that evidence gathering is epistemically irrational for the (Buchak-style) risk-avoidant agent. To do this we consider how accuracy should be measured once risk-awareness is rationally permissible.