Let us record in (38) the two conclusions we have reached.

(38) a. The crucial contrast is between β=0 and β=/=0.
b. The failure to obtain the 'necessary' judgments has a qualitatively different significance depending upon whether the 'necessary' judgment is β=0 or β=/=0, as indicated in (37).

These are extremely important consequences, especially in light of what is often claimed in the literature in regard to the significance and the relevance of a contrastive judgment and how to handle judgmental variations (including unexpected judgments). It is often claimed that the empirical evidence for or against a given proposal is a contrastive judgment and that as long as there is a clear enough contrast found in a given paradigm we are justified to take the paradigm as valid evidence for or against a given proposal. It is also often maintained that judgmental variations are inevitable and we should not expect to obtain totally clear and consistent judgments among our informants.
(Copied from one of the chapters of the book draft.)

Since the relevant discussion makes use of some technical terms, I cannot reproduce the entire discussion in a short posting like this. While the main point here is as in (38), the above remarks are followed immediately by (i).

(i) What is being proposed here share some aspects of such views.

But I will proceed to emphasize the differences between 'such views' and my own.

β=0: the informant's judgment that the sentence is totally unacceptable under the intended interpretation
β=/=0: the informant's judgment that the sentence is not totally unacceptable under the intended interpretation
'necessary' judgments: the informants' judgment that should obtain in order for an alleged generalization to be valid or in order for the predictions not to be disconfirmed or to be confirmed (<==This is a rough characterization of what is intended. A more 'precise' (i.e., close to what is stated in the book draft: chapter 5) characterization would require the introduction of some technical terms.)