The development of homeopathic repertories is complex, reflecting history, the emergence of divergent views on homeopathic philosophy, and differences in opinion as to what constitutes reliable materia medica.The purpose of this paper is to critically evaluate the content of repertories examining its reliability, the quality of source material, and the evidence that it forms a reliable bridge between case and materia medica. Reliability may be improved by demanding higher standards and consistency of evidence. However, it is necessary to understand what constitutes evidence, and the importance of taking into account the context in which practitioners use the repertory. This paper will suggest that rather than demanding certain ‘standards’, practitioners will be better served by a greater understanding of the sources of knowledge and by reflexivity of the key players in the construction of our repertories.‘The repertory’ is considered generally here as the deconstruction of different repertories. The strengths and weaknesses in particular, whilst interesting, would be the topic of another a paper in its own right. Where individual repertories are mentioned, they are referred to as examples only.