Abstract
Woodstock and Harris raise concerns about generalisations in our paper 'Calibrated Ecosystem Models Cannot Predict the Consequences of Conservation Management Decisions'. They implied that our conclusions are invalidated by the exclusion of density dependent compensatory feedback and the existence of automated calibration approaches with overfitting penalties-claims that overlook the broader structural issues we identified. Here, we explore their key criticism in more detail, clarify our position and explain why we continue to stand by our findings.