Perhaps the most intriguing feature of the Pinnacle autoplanning engine is that it is designed, according to the vendor, to push the dosimetric indices beyond the specified goals and towards achievable limits. To definitively verify this claim, one needs to formally demonstrate that the resulting plans are Pareto‐optimal (i.e., no objective can be improved upon without simultaneously sacrificing at least one other). (27) This task is formidable (28) even with the proposed reduction in the number of evaluated plans, 29 , 30 and typically five or fewer dose objectives were considered in the cited references. Therefore Pareto analysis, particularly exhaustive in terms of the structures, was beyond the scope of the current practical study. However, using a composite plan quality metric encompassing challenging evaluation scores is a step in the right direction. Applying it to select the best technique helps to find a balanced solution, where a dosimetric improvement for one structure is more likely to result in deterioration for the other(s). Furthermore, achieved dose values for certain OARs were routinely below the specified goals. This is consistent with the claimed algorithm behavior, although does not prove it. Further studies, with different methodology, are needed to find out if the dose homogeneity could be improved without sacrificing OAR sparing.