The spirit of competencies is commendable and is used for training by other societies. Nonetheless, baseline numbers must be evidence-based or from a broad survey of the society membership to be credible and useful. While we applaud the intent of this report, the process responsible for these recommendations is fatally flawed. (1) Surveys of training directors should have been performed, and a writing committee should have been appointed, with its final product approved by the assembled experts. This more credible and accepted consensus process would involve establishing levels of evidence supporting the guideline. Was this done? If so, why was it not included in the manuscript? (2) In our experience, specific procedural thresholds are more useful to establish “initial” competency rather than “ongoing” skills. A specific example is rigid bronchoscopy. On page 1696, the authors state, “Dedicated operators should perform at least 10 procedures per year to maintain competency.” For those of us who have been performing rigid bronchoscopy for years with no mortality and minimal complications, we find this declaration ill advised. For example, someone with 20 years of experience does not necessarily require the same number of procedures as an inexperienced operator. Complication rates and results are generally thought to comprise a better guideline than an arbitrary minimum number. Indeed, unintended consequences may result if the guideline encourages the inappropriate overuse of the rigid bronchoscope or other invasive procedure for the “touch up of lesions.” (3) Misguided, poorly researched, inadequately supported and/or arbitrary numbers provide a breeding ground for misinterpretation by those organizations (eg, Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, American Heart Association, National Quality Forum, and LEAPFROG) that wish to partner with medicine to improve quality.