Goldman has recently been moving in the direction of synthesis of sorts, of evidentialist and reliabilist epistemologies. Although I agree that reliabilism needs some kind of evidentialist element, I think Goldman concedes too much to the evidentialist by conceding (1) that a great many beliefs require nondoxastic evidence, (2) that evidential fit can be understood in non-process-reliabilist terms, and (3) that the aforementioned or some similar understanding of evidential fit makes sense of propositional, or ex ante, justification. I offer an alternative process reliabilist understanding of evidence, of propositional justification, of ex ante justification, and of defeat.