The implementation of CoARA represents one of the most recent developments in research assessment reform. However, little is known about how these reforms are being interpreted and applied in practice within specific national systems. This study draws on interviews with policy makers and researchers from the Spanish scientific system to examine how ongoing changes in evaluation practices are perceived and implemented. Our findings indicate that reform does not simply replace existing evaluation practices but leads to the coexistence of different assessment logics, generating tensions during the transition toward new evaluation frameworks. We present two of the main preliminary tensions identified in the interviews (metrics vs. qualitative judgement; traditional merits versus alternative forms of recognition) and outline future directions for the analysis.