<p>Despite its widespread use in philosophy and cognitive science, there remains disagreement regarding how to conceptualise the distinction between the personal and the subpersonal. While the distinction was originally formulated in terms of kinds of explanation, some argue that it primarily pertains to kinds of psychological states or processes. This diversity of perspectives leads to uncertainty about how to understand the distinction and assess its utility. To advance the discussion, we propose three desiderata for an account of the distinction: Extensional Adequacy, Explanatory Adequacy, and The Neutrality Requirement. Based on these desiderata, we critically evaluate recent accounts of the personal/subpersonal distinction and offer an alternative account that satisfies these desiderata. This alternative aligns with explanation-based formulations but is more specific in explicitly adopting an interrogative pragmatist view of explanation.</p>