The paper collects the answers of the authors to the following questions:
- Is the lack of precision in the definition of many chemical concepts one of the reasons for the coexistence of many partition schemes?
- Does the adoption of a given partition scheme imply a set of more precise definitions of the underlying chemical concepts?
- How can one use the results of a partition scheme to improve the clarity of definitions of concepts?
- Are partition schemes subject to scientific Darwinism? If so, what is the influence of a community's sociological pressure in the “natural selection” process?
- To what extent does/can/should investigated systems influence the choice of a particular partition scheme?
- Do we need more focused chemical validation of Energy Decomposition Analysis (EDA) methodology and descriptors/terms in general?
- Is there any interest in developing common benchmarks and test sets for cross‐validation of methods?
- Is it possible to contemplate a unified partition scheme (let us call it the “standard model” of partitioning), that is proper for all applications in chemistry, in the foreseeable future or even in principle?
- In the end, science is about experiments and the real world. Can one, therefore, use any experiment or experimental data be used to favor one partition scheme over another? © 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.