De Laet (2015) claimed that minimization of ad hoc hypotheses of homoplasy does not lead to a preference for trivial optimizations when analysing unaligned sequence data, as claimed by Wheeler (2012; see also Kluge and Grant, 2006). In addition, De Laet asserted that Kluge and Grant's (2006) parsimony rationale is internally inconsistent in terms of Baker's (2003) theoretical framework. We argue that De Laet used extraneous presuppositions to critique Wheeler's position and, as such, his criticism should be considered cautiously in terms of its scope. Finally, we demonstrate that considering Kluge and Grant's parsimony rationale as inconsistent rests on De Laet's misunderstanding of the ideographic character concept and the consequences of relating it to Baker's rationale.