Why do we have theories of change of the programme intervention but not of the intervention that is the evaluation?

Theories of change, rightly or wrongly, are virtually a compulsory part of any evaluation design these days. So, too, is a focus on evaluation usefulness, outcomes, and consequences. So, if theories of change are so good, then why do so few evaluators develop a theory of change to demonstrate or focus their claims on the usefulness or consequences of their evaluations? This essay speculates on possible reasons for this state of affairs—some good, some bad, and some arguably unprofessional.