  Lewis has recently argued that Maudlin's contingent absorber experiment
remains a significant problem for the Transactional Interpretation (TI). He
argues that the only straightforward way to resolve the challenge is by
describing the absorbers as offer waves, and asserts that this is a previously
unnoticed aspect of the challenge for TI. This argument is refuted in two basic
ways: (i) it is noted that the Maudlin experiment cannot be meaningfully recast
with absorbers described by quantum states; instead the author replaces it with
an ordinary which-way experiment; and (ii) the extant rebuttals to the Maudlin
challenge in its original form are not in fact subject to the alleged flaws
that Lewis ascribes to them. This paper further seeks to clarify the issues
raised in Lewis' presentation concerning the distinction between quantum
systems and macroscopic objects in TI. It is noted that the latest, possibilist
version of TI (PTI) has no ambiguity concerning macroscopic absorbers. In
particular, macroscopic objects are not subject to indeterminate trajectories,
since they are continually undergoing collapse. It is concluded that the
Maudlin challenge poses no significant problem for the transactional
interpretation.
