The endometrial scratch has become a popular intervention in IVF, particularly in the management of patients presenting with recurrent implantation failure. However, randomised controlled trials that fail to show any benefit on clinical outcomes have recently been published. Given the invasive nature and uncertain putative mechanism of action, there is now a narrative that it should no longer be part of the therapeutic repertoire. In this article, the debate is not about whether the scratch should be used in routine clinical practice: there is enough convincing evidence to indicate it should not. What is challenged is the notion that the studies thus far performed allow the conclusion to be drawn that it will not be of value to any patient and has therefore ‘had its day’. A case is made for a different approach to assessing the efficacy of interventions in the management of recurrent implantation failure.