\[fig:nonLepage\], but by the position of the triton pole. The [N${}^{2}$LO]{} fit uses again the $Nd$ scattering length and triton binding energy.](nonLepage.ZvsEREparameterisation.900MeV.pdf "fig:"){height="0.285\linewidth"} ![\[fig:nonLepage2\] \[fig:nonLepage900MeV\] \[fig:EREvsZ\] *Left*: Thick coloured lines: Z-parametrisation of the $\mathrm{NN}$ amplitude as in Fig. \[fig:nonLepage\], but for $\Lambda_1=900\;{\ensuremath{\mathrm{MeV}}}$, not $600\;{\ensuremath{\mathrm{MeV}}}$; thin gray lines: Bethe’s Effective Range Parametrisation; from Ref. [@improve3body]. \[fig:toB3\] *Right*: Test when the leading $3N$ interaction is determined not by the $Nd$ scattering length as in Fig. \[fig:nonLepage\], but by the position of the triton pole. The [N${}^{2}$LO]{} fit uses again the $Nd$ scattering length and triton binding energy.](nonLepage.Zparam-H0toB3-600.pdf "fig:"){height="0.285\linewidth"}

[**Decreasing Cutoff Dependence**]{} Equation  is a variant of the Renormalisation Group evolution of ${\mathcal{O}}$, eq. , which in turn quantifies the fundamental EFT tenet that observables must become order-by-order less sensitive to loop contributions beyond ${\overline{\Lambda}_\text{EFT}}$, the range of applicability. Cutoff dependence in observables should therefore generically decrease from order to order, irrespective whether or not LECs are fitted. This does not apply to the ${\mathcal{C}}_n$ themselves, but to the entire left-hand side of eq. . Refitting LECs may of course help to absorb some cutoff dependence. Indeed, no new LECs enter at NLO in the example above ($H_0$ is just refitted), and the 