Behavioral evidence for the COVIS dual-process model of category learning has been widely reported in over a hundred publications (Ashby & Valentin, 2016). It is generally accepted that the validity of such evidence depends on the accurate identification of individual participants' categorization strategies, a task that usually falls to Decision Bound analysis (Maddox & Ashby, 1993). Here, we examine the accuracy of this analysis in a series of model-recovery simulations. In Simulation 1, over a third of simulated participants using an Explicit (conjunctive) strategy were misidentified as using a Procedural strategy. In Simulation 2, nearly all simulated participants using a Procedural strategy were misidentified as using an Explicit strategy. In Simulation 3, we re-examined a recently reported COVIS-supporting dissociation (Smith et al., 2014]) and found that these misidentification errors permit an alternative, single-process, explanation of the results. Implications for due process in the future evaluation of dual-process theories, including recommendations for future practice, are discussed.