Cayron, C.Barcelo, F.De Carlan, Y.2014-11-142014-11-142014-11-14201110.1016/j.scriptamat.2010.09.004https://infoscience.epfl.ch/handle/20.500.14299/108841Bhadeshia recently claimed that the two-step theory of martensitic transformation was mathematically incorrect and incapable of making predictions about the observed pole figures. The present paper argues that his comments are not justified and that his alternative propositions do not agree with the observations. The continuous rotations observed in the pole figures do not result from the tempering treatments but from the plastic accommodation of the lattice transformation during the γ → → α sequence. © 2010 Acta Materialia Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.BackscatteringContinuous rotationDislocationsElectron backscatter diffractionelectron diffractionMartensiteMartensitic phase transformationMartensitic transformationsPlastic accommodationPole figurePolesTempering treatmentsTwo-step theorytext::journal::journal article::research article