This chapter provides a comprehensive conceptual analysis of the third possible interpretation of “reasonable expectations”, the “hybrid model”. Where judges or other legal actors employ the normative model, they ask “What kind of information processing would a reasonable person have expected?”. Whereas the ambiguity of this question complicates the model’s conceptual reconstruction and normative evaluation, an analytical dissection shows that, next to possible interpretations of the hybrid model that restate the ideas expressed by the cognitive and normative model (albeit in more cryptic ways), it is also possible to attribute a genuinely specific meaning to the hybrid model, namely one based on the rationale of transparency.