The clinical microbiology laboratory is capable of identifying microorganisms in clinical specimens faster and more accurately than ever before. At face value, this should enable patient care providers to make better-informed decisions and target antimicrobial therapies to deliver individualized care. Ironically, more complete and specific reporting of microorganisms isolated from specimens may result in overtreatment based on the presence of a pathogen, even in the absence of clear signs of clinical infection. This conundrum calls into question the role of the laboratory in contributing to care through selective or “exception” reporting whereby some results are selectively withheld when there is a low probability that laboratory findings correlate with the clinical infection. In a recent article published in the Journal of Clinical Microbiology, Bloomfield et al. (J Clin Microbiol 62:e00342-24, 2024, https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.00342-24) examine the impact and safety of an exception reporting strategy applied to wound swab specimens. Canonical pathogens associated with skin and soft tissue infections including S. aureus and beta-hemolytic streptococci are withheld from the laboratory report if certain patient criteria are met that would put them at low risk of adverse outcomes if untreated, or if treated with guideline-recommended empiric therapy. Their central finding was an approximately 50% reduction in post-laboratory report antibiotic initiation without adverse events or increased 30-day admission rate (indicative of infection-related complications, e.g., disseminated disease). While effectively achieving their goal, the premise of exception reporting and other modified reporting strategies raises questions about the potential risk of underreporting and how to ensure that the message is being interpreted, and acted upon, by care providers as was intended by the laboratory.