The 'Pauling point' is a term which has slowly faded out of use through the years, but which should be as relevant today as when it was first introduced. Its origins are discussed, for example, in Refs. . It refers to the point in a project where the theoretical predictions exactly match the experimental observables, but if one were to proceed and further improve on the calculations (e.g., larger basis sets, remove approximations such as the harmonic approach, etc...) such agreement would disappear. Whenever one resorts to numerical methods to solve a physical problem, it is often the case that there are enough buttons to push and knobs to turn in a way that a close to perfect cancellation of error arises. This can happen accidentally, but the 'Pauling point' is often times actively pursued when the target observables are known. So, instead of aiming for the most advanced description possible, one might use and/or recommend relatively low levels of theory which have shown promise in a known chemi-J o u r n a l N a me , [ y e a r ] , [ v o l . ] , cal subspace. However, the true test to quantum chemistry is its potential for prediction over a large chemical space. Aiming for cheaper solutions might be deterrent to this ultimate goal. This raises the question of how to foster better practices or discover computational protocols robust enough to be used for predictions in an unbiased way.