  Several recent results bring into focus the superintuitionistic nature of
most notions of proof-theoretic validity, but little work has been done
evaluating the consequences of these results. Proof-theoretic validity claims
to offer a formal explication of how inferences follow from the definitions of
logic connectives (which are defined by their introduction rules). This paper
explores whether the new results undermine this claim. It is argued that, while
the formal results are worrying, superintuitionistic inferences are valid
because the treatments of atomic formulas are insufficiently general, and a
resolution to this issue is proposed.
