After successful optimization of the isolation protocol for compound 7cc, we tested other "CH-acidic" and aldehyde counterparts in the reaction with sulfamide. After accumulating statistics of obtained results, it appeared that the success of the reaction depended on the structure of acetoacetic acid amides and aldehydes. Formally these substrates could be divided into "good" and "bad." In this case, acetoacetic acid amides are "good" for secondary amides and "bad" for primary correspondently. Among aromatic aldehydes 5a-f, if they contained π-donor or neutral substituents were "good" but with π-acceptor substituents were "bad". The combination "good"-"good" gave a high preparative yield (Scheme 1). Combining "good" aldehyde with "bad" acetoacetic acid amides was also successful, but yields were lower. In this case, the yields and purity of crude products could be increased by replacing the treatment with hexamethylenetetramine solution for N-methylmorpholine solution. Using "bad" aldehydes, even in combination with "good" acetoacetic acid amides, did not lead to success. Thus, in the case of using aldehyde 5e with the nitro group in combination with 4c, the corresponding product 7ce was detected in the reaction mixture as well as in crude in trace amounts, but its isolation and purification failed. The reaction also failed when employing aliphatic (5h) or sterically hindered aldehydes, like 5g. In these cases, the products did not form at all. Heterocyclic aldehydes were generally appropriate for the reaction except for unstable in an acidic media, like 5l. The scope of aldehydes used in the reaction was generally in accordance with data obtained in our seminal papers directed on TMSCl application as a water scavenger .