This paper examines a small-scale attempt to support collective evaluation of a transgenic potato variety. By mobilizing Laurent Thevénot’s ideas on the connectedness of the ontological and normative, it investigates how the controversial object was associated with coordinating perspectives or orders of worth in two focus groups. In these groups, the GM potato qualified for evaluation in relation to deterministic market forces. However, it was unclear whether the potato would operate as a beneficial market asset or merely as an accelerator (...) of ever tougher competition. The innovation also had a tendency to disappear out of sight or to receive capacities as a transgenic application of whatever kind. Hence, it was only with effort that the discussions delved into the specific realities and circumstances of the Finnish potato production. When they did, some particular demands posed by the blight resistant potato became visible and discussable. These scripts concerned the counterparts of contract production, possibly favoring the reorganization of producers into larger associations of highly specialized professionals. However, since practical implications and possibilities received little attention, the paper suggests that more attention needs to be put into organization and preparation of multi-stakeholder evaluations. The emergence of learning potential greatly depends on the abilities and willingness of the participants to engage with speculative experiments or reality tests. This is a risky strategy for anyone who hopes that a meeting will remain within a particular scope or that it will reach a particular conclusion. (shrink)