here hopes to quantify the internal consistency of an EFT and takes *minimal resort* to experimental information. Ideally, theorists would perform “double-blind” calculations in which theory errors are assessed under the pretence that no or only very limited data is available. Such “post-dictions” are of course predictions when information is indeed experimentally unknown or hard to access, or when data consistency must be checked.

EFT uses scale-separation to expand interactions and observables in a dimension-less quantity $$Q=\frac{\text{typical low momenta } k,{p_\text{typ}}}{\text{breakdown scale } {\overline{\Lambda}_\text{EFT}}}<1\;\;.$$ The numerator contains the relative momentum $k$ between scattering particles and other intrinsic low scales, here summarily denoted by ${p_\text{typ}}$. At the breakdown scale ${\overline{\Lambda}_\text{EFT}}$, new dynamical degrees of freedom enter which are not explicitly accounted but whose effects at these short distances are simplified into Low-Energy Coefficients (LECs). In [$\chi$EFT]{}, ${p_\text{typ}}$ includes the pion mass and the inverse scattering lengths of the $\mathrm{NN}$ system. ${\overline{\Lambda}_{\chi}}\approx[700\dots1000]\;{\ensuremath{\mathrm{MeV}}}$ is consistent with the masses of the $\omega$ and $\rho$ as the next-lightest exchange mesons, and with the chiral symmetry breaking scale. The power counting (PC) is then determined by Naïve Dimensional Analysis [@NDA; @NDA2]. When all interactions are perturbative, as in the mesonic and one-baryon sectors, this amounts to 