In a recent paper, Olson (2019) returned to Parfit’s argument from the possibility of fission to the unimportance of identity to claim that it is inconsistent with Parfit’s ontological commitments. Picking up Olson’s claim, Noonan (2024) argues that one consequence of this is that Parfit’s argument necessarily fails to yield its conclusion. Here I show that Noonan’s ontological stance is similar to Parfit’s in one significant sense, thus diminishing the scope of his claim. As a result, I hold that if we want to defend that personal identity is what matters, we should reject that what matters may be present in a fission scenario.