Finally, the last two subsets allow the DVS and ME approaches to select from both the N = 4 and N = 8 active spaces at different values of λ. As is seen, the DVS approach achieves a better accuracy of 0.18 eV, in line with previous errors achieved on the excitation energies of organic systems. Moreover, the ME approach yields a MAE of 0.1 eV, indicating active spaces of equal or better performance to the hand-selected active spaces (MAE 0.14 eV). We believe that this difference between the DVS scheme and the ME approach is reflective of both the potential bias introduced into active space methods by hand-selected active spaces and the poor performance of MC-PDFT (used by DVS to select between active spaces) for these systems. The potential for bias arises from the trial-and-error way hand selecting an active space is often performed. When multiple such active spaces are tried, it is simple to pick the one which best replicates the reference value, regardless of the quality of the wave function. On the other hand the tPBE excitation energies are comparatively inaccurate for these diatomic systems, so the tPBE energy may not be an ideal metric for selecting between trial wave functions with DVS. We provide further commentary on these points later. Additionally, we note the errors of the DVS and ME schemes are reproduced exactly when only selecting between half of the λ values (0, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, last column),