<p>This paper examines the limits of interpretation holism—the view that interpretation should uncover unified, coherent systems of meaning—particularly when confronted with disordered or conflicting interpretive bases. While interpretation holism is a crucial component of adopting the principle of charity, its applicability becomes questionable when an agent’s mind and actions exhibit significant incoherence and internal tension. The paper distinguishes between uneven conflicts, where holistic interpretation remains viable, and even conflicts, where equally strong but incompatible interpretive forces resist unification. In the latter cases, a revised interpretive strategy is required. I introduce the notion of fragment meaning and its associated apparatus to accommodate the interpretation of non-unifiable minds without distorting their complexity. Rather than rejecting holism or charity, these concepts extend their spirit into more challenging interpretive contexts, suggesting that charity may sometimes lie not in insisting on unity, but in recognizing and portraying fragmentation.</p>