close to the point in which $\lambda$ crosses zero, as in Eq. (\[eq:m-tilde\]), this contribution needs to be small, $\lambda_H \lesssim 0.1$. In the model of Ref. [@Hall:2013eko], this condition needs to be imposed by hand, while here it is automatic because $\lambda_H \sim 
O(\tilde{m}/\Lambda) \ll 1$. Note that since $m_H \sim O(\tilde{m})$ and $\lambda_H \sim O(\tilde{m}/\Lambda)$, the present model does not require doublet-triplet splitting (except for the fine-tuning needed to make the SM Higgs light); namely, the contributions to the mass of the heavy Higgs doublet from the third and fourth terms in Eq. (\[eq:W\_eff\]) need not be nearly canceled with each other. This allows us to have a natural size of $F_\Sigma \sim O(\tilde{m} 
\Lambda)$ in Eq. (\[eq:Sigma-VEVs\]) while still allowing for successful electroweak symmetry breaking, since it only leads to the holomorphic supersymmetry-breaking mass for the Higgs doublets of order $\mu B \approx \lambda_H F_\Sigma \sim O(\tilde{m}^2)$. (In the model of Ref. [@Hall:2013eko], $F_\Sigma \sim O(\tilde{m} 
\Lambda)$ leads to a too large $\mu B$ term of order $\tilde{m} 
\Lambda$, so that $F_\Sigma$ must be suppressed by extra environmental selection.) Finally, the fact that $m_H \sim O(\tilde{m})$ implies that the level of fine-tuning needed to reproduce electroweak symmetry 