Y_{12}=Y_{21}=0,
\label{yESL}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
Z_{11,11}=\lambda_1, && Z_{22,22}=\lambda_1,
\nonumber\\
Z_{11,22}=Z_{22,11}=\lambda_3, && Z_{12,21}=Z_{21,12}=- \lambda_1 - \lambda_3,
\label{zESL}\end{aligned}$$ with $\lambda_1$ given by Eq. (\[MSSM\_L1\_L2\]), $\lambda_3$ given by Eq. (\[MSSM\_L3\]), and all other components of the $Z$ tensor equal to zero.

Comparing Eqs. (\[MSSM\_m11\_m22\])–(\[MSSM\_L5\_L6\_L7\]) with Table \[master1\], we see that these requirements are almost the same as in the THDM with the full $U(2)$ flavor symmetry. The difference is that the $U(2)$-symmetric case implies $\lambda_4 = \lambda_1 - \lambda_3$, while the supersymmetry limit implies $\lambda_4 = - \lambda_1 - \lambda_3$. As shown by Ivanov [@Ivanov1] and by us [@FHS], the former relation can come from a symmetry requirement that exclusively involves the Higgs potential, while the latter relation cannot. In particular, there are no basis changes one can perform on the THDM to obtain, from one of the six symmetries listed in table \[master1\], the SUSY condition $\lambda_4 = - \lambda_1 - \lambda_3$.

This can also be seen by examining the renormalization group equations that control the evolution of the $\lambda_i$. Here, we focus only on those terms arising from the Higgs potential and the gauge couplings.[^3] The relevant expressions can be found, for example, in Refs. [@CEL; @HH; @GL; @FJ]. Using $\lambda_1=\lambda_2$ and 