Are judgements about feasibility subject to normative encroachment (whereby certain not-obviously-normative judgements turn out to co-vary in interesting and surprising ways with our normative judgements)? We shall argue that they are (the normative encroachment thesis), and that the best explanation of it is that is that relevant subjects are making an extensional error that results from conflating the question that is at issue with some other question that is more salient in light of their normative attitudes (what we shall the conflation thesis). Moreover, we shall argue that both theses have significant, surprising, and not straightforward implications for our understanding of both normative encroachment and feasibility.