How much is left for the theory-theory to explain?

Jara-Ettinger and Dunham treat the "mentalistic stance" as theory-theory, leaving the institutional stance vulnerable to a familiar reply: the tacit theory can be context-tuned to fit the surprise cases. I argue that the institutional stance is best motivated by pairing it with simulation-based mindreading and scripts, which together reduce theory-theory's distinctive explanatory role and preserve the authors' appeal to computational economy.