The slow convergence of the permanent potential shows that care must be taken when performing a convergence analysis using model A, as large changes in the potential may occur at long cutoff distances. Moreover, it points out an advantage of model B over model A, even if model B does not appear to improve the induced dipoles. The discussion so far has focused on the potential at the center of mass. Of course, the potential varies depending on the position where it is measured. In Figure , we show the embedding potentials (permanent and induced) calculated using model D and the absolute error in the induced potentials from model C on the van der Waals surface of the quantum subsystem in PNP1, NR-in-BLG, and NR-in-POPC. Here we see that the error varies considerably across the surface and, moreover, that the size of the error relative to the full potential depends on the system. However, in all cases, there are areas where the relative error is substantial. The MAEs overall on the surfaces are 0.002, 0.002, and 0.005 au for PNP1, NR-in-BLG, and NR-in-POPC, respectively, corresponding to 0.05, 0.05, and 0.14 eV. The potential also varies depending on the configuration. Figure shows the variations and averages of the induced potentials at the center of mass calculated using models C and D along the MD trajectory of PNP1, NR-in-BLG, and NR-in-POPC, as well as the error in the induced potentials produced by model C. Here we see that the induced potentials at the center of mass vary from zero up to about 0.05 au (1.4 eV). Moreover, we observe errors that range from close to zero up to almost 0.03 au (0.8 eV), which is much larger than the errors observed for the single configurations above. Remarkably, the errors fluctuate around zero, and both models thus yield almost the same average value of approximately 0.03 au (0.8 eV) for all three systems. Nevertheless, it is evident that the potentials at the central quantum subsystem can be substantially affected by the unphysical polarization at the outer boundary.