Scoping reviews map the breadth and nature of a field. In medical education, however, an increasing number of scoping reviews report using thematic analysis on author-summarised results from included studies. This is a methodological mismatch. Reflexive thematic analysis (in the Braun & Clarke sense) is designed for rich primary qualitative datasets and has an explicitly interpretive logic. Scoping reviews, by contrast, work with secondary data and follow a descriptive, aggregative logic aimed at transparency and reproducibility. Mixing the two invites secondary re-interpretation and can mislead readers about what a scoping review can legitimately claim, while weakening the audit trail. We set out seven points where the two methods clash, covering purpose, epistemology, the level and unit of the data, how that data is collected, the analytic procedures, the outputs and the risk of bias. For each, we point to a fit-for-purpose alternative, whether structured charting, framework-based mapping, or qualitative content analysis. Our message practical. For credible evidence mapping, chart, don’t theme.