A commentary urges higher-education stakeholders to treat an upcoming accreditation proposed rule as an active policy process rather than a finalized outcome from negotiated rulemaking. The author emphasizes that after negotiated consensus language is published as a proposed rule, the Department of Education can revise it further based on public comments within its legal authority. The piece warns that commenters may incorrectly assume that negotiated ground automatically carries through to the final version. It points to the possibility that provisions revised or eliminated during negotiations could be reinstated in response to comments, depending on the agency’s interpretation and the notice-and-comment record. The guidance is aimed at accreditor and institutional leaders deciding how much effort to invest during the comment period, framing the decision as one that can influence future compliance burdens and oversight scope.