Asymmetric amplification via autocatalysis starting from a small enantiomeric excess necessarily requires many turnovers to achieve high enantioenrichment, as demonstrated in Figure for the stochastic dimer-active model. This means that a significant quantity of the "wrong" enantiomer is produced in the early stages of the reaction, when the autocatalyst ee is low. What if there was some way to convert this product back to its starting material and carry out the autocatalytic reaction again, at later stages with the autocatalyst at higher ee? This idea has been explored in a number of modeling studies, although experimental corroboration has not been possible, since the Soai reaction, the only experimentally documented autocatalytic system demonstrating asymmetric amplification, is not reversible under the conditions employed. If the concept that a "second chance" to achieve high enantioenrichment through reversibility seems to be too good to be true, that is because, indeed, it is. The kinetic models that have been constructed to demonstrate this have been shown to be flawed because they violate the principle of microscopic reversibility. Scheme 11 summarizes two autocatalytic models that have been constructed in these studies of the effect of reversibility, along with what we term "missing" reactions, highlighted in red, that were not included in these models. The autocatalytic step has been simulated either as first or second order in the autocatalytic reaction product. A critical error in these models arises in how the reverse reaction that regenerates the substrate is written. In Model I, both forward autocatalysis and backward substrate regeneration are written as irreversible steps; however, the backward reaction is not written as the reverse of the forward autocatalytic reaction, but instead as a simple uncatalyzed reaction. In Model II, forward autocatalysis is written as irreversible while substrate recycling is written as a reversible uncatalyzed reaction.