If that problem is not resolved, and E correction (composition) does not smoothly approach zero as the reference state is approached, then the very mathematical structure of the standard correction or any additive correction guarantees physically impossible predictions near the corner of the phase diagram. Concerningly, one would also expect this problem to extend at least partway into the rest of the phase diagram to a lesser but still potentially significant degree. It is worth noting that many of the correction values used in the standard correction method are on the order of -0.5 eV/atom, and energy differences on the order of 0.05 eV/atom are significant when considering the stability of a bulk material. If a given correction energy is -0.5 eV/atom, then size of this unphysical energy problem is exactly -0.5 eV at the cor-ner of the phase diagram. As one moves away from the corner of the phase diagram, for how long does a significant problem persist? The answer is not clear and use-case-dependent. The impact of the correction method on phase diagrams is shown later in this work, but even before any results are presented, this is a concerning idea, especially because all of the halogens have rather large energy corrections in the standard correction method, and transition metal halides are frequently 2/3 or 3/4 halogen by moles, so there are many commonly occurring compositions that are relatively close to the problematic corner of the phase diagram.