In Schön’s account, contingency is encountered in the essential reflective dialogue with the design situation, in move-making, reflection and move-making again. Design moves are concrete, yet also speculative in that their outcome cannot be fully ascertained a priori. Once performed, we may be in a position to judge whether the outcome is aligned with our intentions, or whether something rather different was produced. Unexpected results can be revealing and inspiring, or close down exploration, shutting off further lines of inquiry. Designers may operate in a loose, experimental manner and by definition outcomes will have a greater degree of unexpectedness. Importantly, however, the designer does not intend for a specific outcome, but rather intends for experimentation, guided only by loose framing. Un- expected results cannot be considered a mistake or error under these conditions because that is precisely what is intended. We seek to diminish the event and significance of ‘mistakes’ and ‘errors’, and argue instead that experimental practice is to operate with a looser ‘grip’ on the design situation. We contrast this with non-experimental design practice and develop a phenomenologically-informed account of design practice.