We finally point out that while Baker used the HF/STO-3G method and we are using HF/6-31G**, the observed overall trends are comparable (see Table ). To provide a more comprehensive understanding of the test suite, we used the DL-FIND/L-BFGS implementation to compare the effect of different levels of theory and basis sets in addition to HF/6-31G**. The results of this comparison are summarized in Table of the Supporting Information. While there are differences for individual molecules, the total number of steps increases only slightly with increasing flexibility in the basis set, from 331 for HF/STO-3G to 356 as mentioned above for HF/6-31G**. The total number of steps remains very similar between HF and representative generalized gradient approximation (GGA) and hybrid-GGA density functional methods. This comparison allows for a clearer and more complete picture of the observed overall trends, which are consistent with those presented in Table .