A recent study (Harris & Williams, 2019) is among the first to empirically examine the role of academic research in audit standard-setting. Harris and Williams studied changes over time in the number of academic citations included in the forty-four standard-setting projects undertaken by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) since its inception, concluding that the PCAOB is increasingly following an evidence-based approach to standard setting. This study extends Harris and Williams’ study through a detailed examination of academic citations in the due process documents related to a single new PCAOB auditing standard: AS 2501, Auditing Accounting Estimates, Including Fair Value Measurements (PCAOB, 2018). Academic research does appear to have played an evidence-based role in the development of AS 2501, consistent with the findings of Harris and Williams. However, academic citations also appear to have been deployed for other purposes in the due process documents, as well, including to connect the framings of both the problem and solution to a more abstract and legitimate body of knowledge outside of the accounting and auditing literatures. This suggests a much more complex role for academic research in the PCAOB standard-setting process than was originally indicated by Harris and Williams.