hierarchical, the more the FC contribution increases. Indeed, it vanishes in the limit that right-handed neutrinos are degenerate, in which case a contribution to ${\cal I}m(A_{ii})$ only appears at fourth order, proportional to ${\cal I}m(y_e N[N,E]N)_{ii}$. Notice also that the naive scaling relation is generally violated [@ellis-1] by (\[ss\_ae\]).

Eq. (\[ss\_ae\]) displays a linear dependence on the unknown parameter $a_0$. By defining $A_{ii} \equiv |A_{ii}| e^{i 8 \phi_{A_i}}$, then $ \phi_{A_i} \approx  t_2 t_3  {\cal I}m( \2  \3)_{ii} + $ $t_1 t_3 {\cal I}m(\1  \3 )_{ii} + $ $ t_1 t_2  {\cal I}m( \1 \2 )_{ii} $ is completely specified by the seesaw parameters. However, as appears from eq. (\[FC\]) the experimental limit on $d_i$ doesn’t probe directly $\phi_{A_i}$, rather it gives a bound on ${\cal I}m(A_{ii}) v_d \equiv m_{i} {\cal I}m(a_{i})$ once supersymmetric masses are fixed (and up to unnatural conspiracies between the various amplitudes). Figs. \[Fph\_A\], taken from Ref. [@ms1], show the present upper limits on $| {\cal I}m (a_e) |/m_R$ and the planned ones for $| {\cal I}m (a_\mu) |/m_R$ in the plane $(\ti M_1, m_R)$, respectively the bino and R slepton mass at $m_{susy}$. Notice that these limits are quite model independent because, apart from $m_R$ 