Comparison of an automated, first-order pattern analysis vs. a QM-based HiFSA shows that firstorder assumptions in this case yield reasonably close values for the coupling constants. Automated multiplicity or multiplet analysis such as provided by contemporary NMR software yields an obviously wrong output such as the following: δ 1.52 (td, J = 13.2, and 4.5 Hz; 1H), whereas HiFSA analysis (CT, NMR Solutions Ltd, Kuopio, Finland) reveals the actual spin parameters as δ 1.52264 (dddq, J = -13.660, 13.158, 4.631, and -0.668 Hz; 1H). In fact, without QM analysis the coupling to the methyl group would remain undetected. However, this (over)simplified approach obscures important facts behind the data, as discussed above, which blurs conclusions and hides actual information, especially when imprecise nomenclature is used.