while the other scales ${p_\text{typ}}$ are fixed, but any combination of the low-energy scales may serve as variable(s). For example, scanning in the pion mass at fixed $k\ll m_\pi$ may elucidate the $m_\pi$-dependence of some couplings, with particular relevance to extrapolating lattice computations at non-physical pion masses. Here, I will continue to concentrate on variations with $k$, but most issues transfer straightforwardly to other variations.

[**Window of Opportunity**]{} One can read off slopes most easily in the range ${p_\text{typ}}<k<{\overline{\Lambda}_\text{EFT}}$. In [EFT($\slashed{\pi}$)]{}, that window is narrow but suffices: ${\overline{\Lambda}_{\slashed{\pi}}}/({p_\text{typ}}\sim\gamma_{t,s})\lesssim3$. In [$\chi$EFT]{}with dynamical $\Delta(1232)$ degrees of freedom, we expect a wider range: ${\overline{\Lambda}_{\chi}}/({p_\text{typ}}\sim m_\pi)\gtrsim4$. One may of course also fit the variables $n$ and ${\overline{\Lambda}_\text{EFT}}$ in eq.  to the numerical results outside that window, but then one needs to specify ${p_\text{typ}}$ and determine its contribution relative to $k$.

[**Choice of Regulator**]{} Residual cutoff dependence comes naturally in numerical computations. This tests uses it as a tool to check consistency. The example used a “hard” cutoff, but ${\overline{\Lambda}_\text{EFT}}$ and $n$ do not depend on a specific regulator. If the theory can be renormalised exactly, all residual regulator dependence disappears by dimensional transmutation; cf. .

[**Choice of Cutoffs**]{} The functional dependencies of eqs.  and 