The representability reconstruction of Anselm's ontological argument turns existence into a priced universal-property claim. The formal question is not whether existence belongs to a maximal concept, but whether a coherent field of manifestations is represented by a universal source; the move from manifestation to source requires explicit smallness, solution-set, continuity, accessibility, descent, or geometric hypotheses. Directly stipulating those hypotheses risks making the ontological move look locally tailored. The central thesis of this paper is that general reflection principles, and especially Vopěnka-style reflection, offer a more principled test: they ask which parts of the representability price can be paid at the level of the ambient universe. Vopěnka's Principle is the guiding test case because its standard categorical consequences speak directly to those costs. In locally presentable and accessible settings, Vopěnka-level reflection can turn many proper-class-looking obstruction problems into set-generated, accessible, or reflective ones, provided the relevant functorial and ambient hypotheses are already in place. The resulting framework assigns to a weakened pro, Ind, local, stacky, or Tate horizon a target-indexed price region, a theorem-backed approximation of that region, and, when a least sufficient principle exists, a reflection price. These are calibration devices, not new ontological proofs. Large-cardinal reflection does not create representability ex nihilo, and no reflection principle erases ordinary categorical obstructions or supplies a source without compatible structure. The philosophical payoff is a collapse spectrum. Reflection may certify some tame horizons at object, stack, or horizon level; others remain unpaid relative to available theorems. Even successful certification is attribute-conservative: it can add an ambient sourcehood certificate without changing truth in the old fibrewise language of manifestations. Thus Vopěnka-style reflection does not vindicate the classical Anselmian inference. It shifts the debate from predicate-concept analysis to the admissible reflection principles by which sourcehood may be certified. In compressed form: ineffability is the residue left after the reflection price is paid.
Lorand Bruhacs (Wed,) studied this question.