Abstract
In their Comment, Wilkinson and Mauro (WM) raise the issue that our coarse-graining interpretation of the fragility in network forming glasses lacks the first derivative quality inherent in their temperature-dependent constraint theory (TDCT). In response, we clarify this issue and acknowledge that both approaches are in conflict and each is struggling for validation. As something of a way forward, we challenge proponents of TDCT to resolve a puzzle in the fragility trends of simple binary alkali oxide glasses.