I believe and have believed for a long time that rear foot control is not the best way to balance and align the bio-mechanics of the foot and lower extremity. There is a retrograde effect of max pronation of the mid foot as well as the rear foot.

The more the rear foot can pronate the more the range of pronation thoughout the foot structure. The more the Mid Tarsal Joint pronates (MTJ—middle of the foot, AKA "arch") the more allowable range of pronation at the rear foot, and as the rear foot pronates further, this allows the MTJ to open up further as well. This is the "retrograde" effect I'm speaking of.

Because, the rear foot is being restricted by both a heel cup and possibly a rearfoot post (which is really an artificial means of "controlling" the foot). The MTJ may open up further, stressing the rear foot. That's why some orthotics can be so painful.

(At the same time even with this restriction, the over all motion of pronation is limited/minimized and therefore one can feel positive benefits even if it's uncomfortable to wear.)

When either the arch or rear foot is capable of pronating further, but is "restricted" in its motion rather than moving naturally, you have a controlled foot. While I am in the minority, I would rather "guide or assist" the foot movement naturally while limiting/minimizing the motion of both the arch and rear foot.

In any footstep, the greatest range of pronation starts at the mid foot (after the foot has made full contact with the ground), therefore isn't it reasonable to address it first?