Using multiple, independent approaches in molecular species delimitation is advocated to accommodate limitations and assumptions of a single approach. Incongruence in delimitation schemes is a potential byproduct of employing multiple methods on the same data, and little attention has been paid to its reconciliation. Instead, a particular scheme is prioritized and/or molecular delimitations are coupled with additional, independent lines of evidence that mitigate incongruence. We advocate that incongruence within a line of evidence should be accounted for before comparing across lines of evidence, that can themselves be incongruent. Additionally, it is not uncommon for empiricists working in non-model systems to be data-limited, generating some concern for the adequacy of available data to address the question of interest. With conservation and management decisions often hinging on the status of species, it seems prudent to understand the capabilities of approaches we use given the data we have. Here we apply two molecular species delimitation approaches, spedeSTEM and BPP, to the Castilleja ambigua (Orobanchaceae) species complex, a relatively young plant lineage in western North America. Upon finding incongruence in our delimitation, we employed a post-hoc simulation study to examine the power of these approaches to delimit species. Given the data we collected, we find that spedeSTEM lacks the power to delimit while BPP is capable, thus allowing us to address incongruence before proceeding in delimitation. We suggest post-hoc simulation studies like this compliment empirical delimitation, and serve as a means of exploring conflict within a line of evidence and dealing with it appropriately.