'$ arising from intermediate scales must vanish, presumably by the same mechanism.) While the implications of this idea are interesting, it is not clear yet how to implement it in an explicit field-theoretic model. As a matter of fact, to date the only available examples [@ref:fkz] satisfy $c_2 = 0$ only at 1-loop order (see [@ref:bpr] for an explicit example of its violation at 2-loop order). Moreover, if such an implementation were found, making $V_{\rm eff}={\cal O}(\tilde m^4)$, there would still be two contributions: one from the MSSM modes, and one which remains as a boundary term from matching the low- and high-energy theories. While the first contribution is determined to lowest order by the 1-loop RG evolution of the Higgs mass and of the cosmological constant, and is $\sim \tilde m^4 \log (\Lambda/\tilde m)/(4 \pi)^2$, the second contribution $\sim \xi_0 \tilde m^4$ is in principle unknown. The first contribution yields a phenomenology similar to the one we have studied throughout most of this paper. The second can only be controlled by making our minimality assumption (or some equivalently strong assumption)—and then, again, similar predictions would be made. We do not know the relative size of the two contributions. If we were to treat $\xi_0$ as a usual threshold correction arising from 1-loop field-theoretic diagrams, we would expect it to be $\xi_0 \sim 1/16\pi^2$ and hence subdominant in the limit $\log (\Lambda/\tilde m)\gg 1$, thus weakening the dependence on unknown cut-off physics. On the other hand, the MSSM contributions are suppressed by small Yukawa couplings. In the end, we must plead at least as much ignorance about the $c_2 = 0$ case as about the $c_2 \not = 0$ case, and so the minimality assumption is unavoidable.

Finally, we comment briefly on CP violation. In Ref. [@ref:dt] the issue of dynamical CP phases was discussed in the context of the MSSM with universal soft terms. It was shown that, when the phases of $A$, $M_{1/2}$, $\mu$ and $B\mu$ are promoted to dynamical variables, the only CP-violating effects have a CKM origin, [*i.e
' $ arising from intermediate scales must vanish, presumably by the like mechanism .) While the implication of this idea are interesting, it is not clear so far how to follow through it in an explicit field - theoretical model. As a matter of fact, to date the lone available examples [ @ref: fkz ] satisfy $ c_2 = 0 $ entirely at 1 - loop order (visualize [ @ref: bpr ] for an explicit example of its violation at 2 - loop order). Moreover, if such an execution were found, making $ V_{\rm eff}={\cal O}(\tilde m^4)$, there would still be two contribution: one from the MSSM modes, and one which remains as a boundary condition from matching the low- and eminent - energy theories. While the first contribution is determined to lowest orderliness by the 1 - loop RG evolution of the Higgs mass and of the cosmological constant, and is $ \sim \tilde m^4 \log (\Lambda/\tilde m)/(4 \pi)^2 $, the second contribution $ \sim \xi_0 \tilde m^4 $ is in principle unknown. The inaugural contribution yields a phenomenology similar to the one we have studied throughout most of this paper. The second can only be controlled by making our minimality assumption (or some equivalently strong assumption)—and then, again, similar prediction would be made. We do not know the proportional size of the two contribution. If we were to regale $ \xi_0 $ as a usual threshold correction arising from 1 - loop field - theoretic diagram, we would expect it to be $ \xi_0 \sim 1/16\pi^2 $ and hence subdominant in the limit $ \log (\Lambda/\tilde m)\gg 1 $, thus weakening the dependence on unknown cut - off physics. On the other hand, the MSSM contributions are oppress by little Yukawa couplings. In the end, we must plead at least as much ignorance about the $ c_2 = 0 $ case as about the $ c_2 \not = 0 $ case, and therefore the minimality assumption is unavoidable. 

 Finally, we gloss briefly on CP trespass. In Ref.   [ @ref: dt ] the issue of dynamical CP phase was discussed in the context of the MSSM with cosmopolitan soft terms. It was shown that, when the phases of $ A$, $ M_{1/2}$, $ \mu$ and $ B\mu$ are promoted to dynamic variables, the only CP - violating effects have a CKM lineage, [ * i.e
'$ arlsing from intermediate rcales must vannwh, prevumablg by the same mechanism.) While the im'licqtionw of this idea are intdresting, pt is not cleer yet how to im'mement lc in zk expnmcit field-theorgtic model. Av a matter of xazt, to date the only available examplef [@ref:fka] datisfy $c_2 = 0$ onjy au 1-ljop kgdtr (see [@ref:bpr] for an explicit exajple of its violatiom at 2-loop order). Moreover, iv sufh an implementatiln were foubd, mwjing $V_{\rm eff}={\zal O}(\tilde m^4)$, there woumd still be two contributions: ove frpm the MSSN nodfv, and one wiich rvmains as a boundary derm frpm matching thc low- ane high-energy theories. While the first cjntributimn is determined to liwest ordar bh thd 1-lko' RF evolktikn of the Giggs mass qnd of the cosmologocwo constant, ans is $\sym \tilde m^4 \log (\Lambda/\tilde m)/(4 \pi)^2$, the secong ckntribution $\sim \xi_0 \tildw m^4$ is in principle ujknown. Thq first contribution yields a phenomenology simildr to ghe oke wd hwve studied throughout most of this paper. The aevokd can only be cjntrolled bu lalyng our minimxlity cashmption (or some eqkivalenjly steong assuiptipn)—and then, again, similar prwdictions wolld ve made. We do not nnow the reuatife siae of the two contributnons. Ir we were tl treat $\xj_0$ as a usual threrhokd correction arising from 1-ljop field-vheorztic diaeramx, we wjuld expech it bm be $\xi_0 \sim 1/16\pi^2$ and hencg subdmminant in the limit $\log (\Lambda/\tilde m)\gg 1$, thus weakeninb dhe dependeuce on unknown cut-osf physics. On jhe other hand, the MSSM bontributmons are sup[ressed by smdpl Yukawa conplings. Ig thw ene, we murg plead at leaxt as muck ignirance about the $c_2 = 0$ zzse as about thz $x_2 \not = 0$ case, anc su tre mmnimajhty assumptimn ir uvsvoidxble.

Finally, de cpmment briefly on CP viomation. In Ref. [@ref:dt] tme issue if dynamycal CP phasex was discussed in the rontexv of tne ISSM with universal soft terms. It was sjowk that, when tre pmasef of $A$, $M_{1/2}$, $\mb$ and $B\mu$ are promoted to dynamical variebles, the only CP-violajing effects have a CLK origin, [*i.e
'$ arising from intermediate scales must vanish, the mechanism.) While implications of this not yet how to it in an field-theoretic model. As a matter of to date the only available examples [@ref:fkz] satisfy $c_2 = 0$ only at order (see [@ref:bpr] for an explicit example of its violation at 2-loop order). if an were making $V_{\rm eff}={\cal O}(\tilde m^4)$, there would still be two contributions: one from the MSSM modes, one which remains as a boundary term from the low- and high-energy While the first contribution is to order by 1-loop evolution the Higgs mass of the cosmological constant, and is $\sim \tilde m^4 \log (\Lambda/\tilde m)/(4 \pi)^2$, the second contribution $\sim \tilde m^4$ principle unknown. first yields phenomenology similar to we have studied throughout most of second can only be controlled by making our assumption (or equivalently strong assumption)—and then, again, similar would be made. We do not know the size of the two contributions. If we were to treat $\xi_0$ as a usual threshold from 1-loop field-theoretic diagrams, would expect it be \sim and subdominant in limit $\log (\Lambda/\tilde m)\gg 1$, thus weakening the dependence on unknown physics. On the other hand, the MSSM contributions are suppressed Yukawa In the end, must plead at least much about the $c_2 = as the 0$ and the minimality assumption is Finally, we comment briefly on violation. In Ref. [@ref:dt] phases was discussed in the context of the with universal soft terms. It was shown when the phases of $A$, $M_{1/2}$, $\mu$ and $B\mu$ are promoted to variables, the effects have a CKM origin, [*i.e
'$ arising from intermediate scAles must vaNish, pResUmaBlY by tHe saMe mechanism.) WhiLE the Implications of this idea Are inTeREstiNG, iT is noT clear yET hOW To iMpLeMenT iT In An expLicIt field-Theoretic mOdeL. AS a matter of faCT, tO date the onLy aVailable examPleS [@ref:fkZ] sAtiSFy $c_2 = 0$ onLy aT 1-loop Order (sEE [@ref:bpR] for an expLiCIt examPLe of its VIOlAtioN at 2-loop order). MoreoVEr, IF such an implemeNtatioN wERe FOUnd, MakIng $V_{\rm eff}={\cAl o}(\tildE M^4)$, there wOUlD STIll BE two contributIons: one from THe MsSM modEs, And ONe whicH remaInS As a Boundary terM froM matching The low- ANd high-eNErgy theOries. WHilE thE firST cOnTriBuTIon IS dEteRMinEd to loweSt OrDer by The 1-lOOP rg evoLutIon oF the HIggs mass and of The CosmOLogIcal cOnstaNt, anD iS $\sim \tIlde m^4 \lOg (\LamBdA/\tilde m)/(4 \pi)^2$, the secOnd cOntributiOn $\sIm \Xi_0 \tIlDe m^4$ is IN princIplE unKnown. ThE first cONtrIbUTIOn Yields a phenomenoloGy SIMiLar to the One we hAVe StUDied throUgHouT mosT OF this PapeR. thE second cAn only BE cOnTrolled By Making OuR miNimAlity ASsumPtion (oR some equIvaleNTly strong assumPTion)—and then, agAIn, SIMiLAr prEdiCtions would Be maDE. We dO not KNoW thE RelatIve siZe OF tHE two contributions. If We Were to Treat $\Xi_0$ as a usual thrEshold corrECTIon arisiNg frOM 1-lOOp field-theoretIc diaGrams, we wouLD expect iT to be $\Xi_0 \sim 1/16\pi^2$ aNd hence suBDOminant iN thE liMit $\Log (\lAMbDa/\tilde m)\gg 1$, thuS WEakeNiNg the dePenDence on UnkNowN cuT-ofF pHysics. On tHe other hAnD, tHe mSsM cOntriBUtions arE sUppReSseD by smALl YukaWa couPlinGs. in THe eNd, we musT PlEAD at lEaSt As muCh iGnOrancE aboUT thE $c_2 = 0$ case aS about the $C_2 \noT = 0$ Case, AnD sO the minImality assumpTiOn is unavoiDaBle.

finallY, WE comment Briefly on CP violation. In REF. [@ref:dt] tHe iSsue oF dynAmical CP pHasEs was dIscUSsed in The conText oF tHe Mssm with UNIvErsAl Soft terms. IT WAs sHown tHaT, wheN the phaSes of $A$, $M_{1/2}$, $\mu$ and $B\mu$ are PRomOted to dynamicAl vAriaBLEs, The ONlY cP-vIoLAtiNG Effects have a CKM Origin, [*i.e
'$ arising from intermedia te scalesmustvan ish ,pres umab ly by the same mech anism.) While the impl icati on s  oft hi s ide a are i n te r e sti ng ,itis no t cle aryet how  to implem ent  i t in an expl i ci t field-th eor etic model.Asa matt er  of fact,  to  date  the o n ly ava ilable ex am p les [@ r ef:fkz] s at isfy  $c_2 = 0$ only a t  1 - loop order (se e [@re f: b pr ] for  an  explicitex ample of itsv io l a t ion at 2-loop ord er). Moreov e r,if suc hani mpleme ntati on wer e found, ma king  $V_{\rmeff}={ \ cal O}( \ tilde m ^4)$,the rewoul d  s ti llbe two co ntr i but ions: on efr om th e MS S M m odes , a nd o ne wh ich remains a s a  bou n dar y ter m fro m ma tc hingthe lo w- an dhigh-energy the orie s. Whilethe  f irs tcontr i bution  is  de termine d to lo w est  o r d e rby the 1-loop RG e vo l u ti on of th e Higg s  m as s  and ofth e c osmo l o gical  con s ta nt, andis $\s i m\t ilde m^ 4\log ( \L amb da/ \tild e  m)/ (4 \pi )^2$, th e sec o nd contributio n  $\sim \xi_0\ ti l d em ^4$isin principl e un k nown . Th e  f irs t  cont ribut io n  y i elds a phenomenolog ysimila r tothe one we ha ve studied t h roughout  mos t  o f  this paper. T he se cond can o n ly be co ntrol led by m aking our m inimalit y a ssu mpt ion ( or  some equival e n tlyst rong as sum ption)— and  th en,  ag ai n, simila r predic ti on swo uld  be m a de. We d onot  k now  ther elativ e siz e of  t he two  contri b ut i o ns.If  w e we reto  trea t $\ x i_0 $ as ausual thr esh o ld c or re ction a rising from 1 -l oop field- th eor etic d i a grams, w e would expect it to be $\xi_0\si m 1/1 6\pi ^2$ and h enc e subd omi n ant in  the l imit$\ log ( \Lamb d a /\ til de  m)\gg 1$, t hus  weak en ingthe dep endence on unknown cut -off physics.  On  the o th erh an d , t he MSS M contributions a re suppres se d  b y small Yu k awa  c oupling s. In t he en d , we mu st pleadat leastas  muc h ign orance abo ut the $ c_2 = 0$c ase a s  a boutthe  $c_2\n ot= 0$case,a ndso th e mini ma lity a ssump ti on is un avoidable.

Finally, we  comme nt br ief ly on CPvio l ati on. In Re f. [ @ref:dt] t heiss ue of  dy n amica l CP ph ase s  wasdisc u ssed in t h econ t e xt  of the MSS M w ith  univ ers a l soft  ter ms. It was shownt hat, when thephas e s  of  $A $ , $M _{ 1/2}$, $\mu$ a nd$B \ m u$ are p ro moted to dy namicalva r iable s, the  onlyCP-viol a t in g  effec ts h ave  a CKM or igi n, [*i.e
'$ arising_from intermediate_scales must vanish, presumably_by the_same_mechanism.) While_the_implications of this_idea are interesting,_it is not clear_yet how to_implement_it in an explicit field-theoretic model. As a matter of fact, to date the_only_available examples_[@ref:fkz]_satisfy_$c_2 = 0$ only at_1-loop order (see [@ref:bpr] for_an explicit_example of its violation at 2-loop order). Moreover,_if_such an implementation_were found, making $V_{\rm eff}={\cal O}(\tilde m^4)$, there would_still be two contributions: one from_the MSSM modes,_and_one_which remains as a_boundary term from matching the low-_and high-energy theories. While the first_contribution is determined to lowest order by_the 1-loop RG evolution of the_Higgs mass and of the_cosmological constant,_and is $\sim \tilde m^4_\log (\Lambda/\tilde m)/(4_\pi)^2$, the_second contribution $\sim_\xi_0 \tilde m^4$ is in principle_unknown. The first_contribution yields a phenomenology similar to_the_one we have_studied_throughout_most of_this paper. The_second_can only_be_controlled by making our minimality assumption_(or_some equivalently strong assumption)—and then, again, similar_predictions would be made._We_do not know the_relative size of the two_contributions. If we were to treat_$\xi_0$ as_a usual_threshold correction arising from 1-loop field-theoretic diagrams, we would expect it_to be $\xi_0 \sim 1/16\pi^2$ and_hence subdominant in the_limit $\log_(\Lambda/\tilde_m)\gg 1$, thus_weakening_the dependence_on unknown cut-off physics. On the other_hand, the_MSSM contributions are suppressed by small_Yukawa couplings. In the_end,_we must plead at least as_much ignorance about the $c_2 =_0$ case as about the_$c_2_\not_= 0$ case, and so_the minimality assumption is unavoidable.

Finally, we_comment briefly on_CP violation. In Ref. [@ref:dt] the issue of_dynamical_CP phases was discussed in the_context_of the MSSM with universal soft_terms._It_was shown that, when the_phases of $A$, $M_{1/2}$, $\mu$ and_$B\mu$ are promoted to dynamical variables, the only CP-violating_effects have a_CKM origin, [*i.e