This article responds to issues raised by Antilla et al. in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology about the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group's approach to rating imprecision and GRADE's use of statistics. They argue that GRADE confuses statistical terms and should provide a stepwise rating of imprecision for making decisions. Here, a clarification of those perceptions is provided. GRADE's ratings of imprecision and other quality of evidence domains is an iterative process that may or may not consider people important thresholds of effects when systematic review authors rate imprecision.