-DT points and A X where the choice of the extrapolation points (and basis augmentation) is left to the practitioner since these will depend on the computational budget and the problem/software at hand. However, note that in principle the higher the point in the sequence, the more accurate the extrapolated value, and the DT scheme should rather be taken as a first rough estimate. In practice, the universal application of such a procedure across correlated wavefunction methods (CCSD, CCSD(T),...) has been widely accepted . Finally, getting the electron correlation in the CBS limit relies on the saturation of the one-electron basis, whose basis functions should adequately span short distances and be flexible enough to incorporate long-range components of the wavefunction. The latter are directly linked to the delocalized nature of the virtual states that contribute to the correlation energy, and therefore necessitate a balanced and complete space coverage. In that sense, plane waves are capable of capturing high-lying (continuum-like) states as well as localized occupied states, at the cost of a sufficiently large cutoff energy . When compared to plane waves, we noticed that the ability of the correlation-consistent bases to cope with the BSIE decreases as the number of electrons increases, therefore questioning the capability of localized basis sets to recover most of the correlation energy as the system size increases. Plane wave, explicitly correlated, or numerical calculations on larger systems would confirm (or refute) this statement, but their computational overhead seems to compromise their application for the time being. It is therefore not excluded that, with the improvement of wavefunction-based methods, the precision of correlated energies becomes comparable to the basis set errors; such that the nature of the basis or its extrapolation to the CBS limit ultimately becomes dominant and leads to noticeable deviations that exceed chemical accuracy (1 kcal/mol) for larger molecules.