Evaluators are often pressed to choose between technical rigor and values like accessibility, safety, and inclusion, as if the two were opposing goals. In this post, Melanie Kawano-Chiu of the Disability Rights Fund and I argue this is a false choice. Drawing on DRF’s experience supporting disability rights movements around the world, we reframe rigor as a matter of sound reasoning and the integrity of how evidence is generated and used. We share practical tips for shifting narrow narratives about what counts as rigorous, redistributing the technical burden of evaluation away from community partners, and using even small openings to integrate values-driven approaches.