Jonathan Vogel has recently argued that counterfactual reliabilism (CR) cannot account for higher-level knowledge that one's belief is true, or not false. His particular argument for this claim is straightforward and valid. Interestingly, there is a parallel argument, based on an alternative but plausible reinterpretation of the main premise in Vogel's argument, which squares CR with higher-level knowledge both that one's belief is true and that one's belief is not false. I argue that, while Vogel's argument reveals the incompatibility of CR and knowledge of certain higher-level propositions, it does not establish the general claim that CR is incompatible with knowledge that any of one's beliefs is true, or not false.