at $Q^{1}$]{}&$+7$&$+3$&0&$+8$

\

------------------------------------------------------------------------

total at $Q^{1}$&$9$&$14$&$10$&$13$

\

It is thus no surprise that four active PC proposals emerged in [$\chi$EFT]{}, all with the same degrees of freedoms: nucleons and pions only [@Weinberg; @Birse:2005um; @Birse:2009my; @PavonValderrama:2005wv; @PavonValderrama:2005uj; @Valderrama:2009ei; @Valderrama:2011mv; @Long:2011xw; @Long:2012ve]. Table \[tab:pc\] lists their predictions for the order at which a LEC enters in the lower $\mathrm{NN}$ partial waves. Each finds a different number of LECs at any given order – and each claims consistency. Not all can be right, though. Articles, panels and sessions at Chiral Dynamics and other conferences as well as dedicated workshops led to little consensus (see e.g. Daniel Phillips’ even-handed account at the last Chiral Dynamics [@Phillips:2013fia]); some additional notable contributions include Refs. .

This is not just stamp-collecting or a philosophical question which potentially exposes the soft underbelly of [$\chi$EFT]{}and the credibility of its error assessments, but which is “otherwise” of little practical consequence. A central EFT promise is that it encodes the unresolved short-distance information at a given accuracy into not just some, but the *smallest-possible* number of independent LECs. For example, the PC proposals of $\mathrm{NN}$ [$\chi$EFT]{}differ most for attractive triplet waves: the [${}^{3}\mathrm{P}_{2}$]{}-[${}^{3}\mathrm{F}_{2}$]{} system at order $Q^0$ has no LEC 